 If I can, now that we're actually all together apart again, I'd like to be able to call the meeting to order, but I think the chair of the meeting should do that. Now, my understanding is that I think there was a suggestion that Rama service as chair for that. And I don't know if that was just a suggestion internally or if that's a consensus of the group here that. I move to the nominate Rama chair by second. Okay. Anyone? I have no idea who suggested it other than Dan. I was just stacked. It was, I think it's staff internal. And I don't know if it's because Rama has done, that has served as that. I think it's only chair for the purposes of just running this meeting. Would it be possible? This is Anne Brenia, ward eight. Would it be possible to do a round of introductions just so we know who's present? Let's do that after we do the chair. And the chair can follow the agenda in that way. That sounds good. Well, I got a little bit of a problem. How many of them? Robert, they on the floor is a motion and a second. Shall we take a vote? We're going to go crazy if we're just interrupting and going topic to topic all over. Shall we take a vote or just pick if people want to discuss for the chair is then the chair will take control of the room. I don't see a quorum. I don't see enough. There should be eight of us. I see. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight I see. Okay. I guess I see. Are you taking nominations from the floor? Yes. Rama's been, well actually there's, right now there's a motion to have Rama service the chair. And that has been seconded. So under Robert's rules of order that's a motion that has to be taken up. Or- That was railroaded. Slow down. Do you want to take nominations for a chair? You've got to open it up to the floor and not jump in with a resolution. Well, no, I mean, I was saying there was strictly a motion. Now, if you want to vote against it and purposes of adding further. I'm just withdrawing your motion. Okay. I withdraw my motion. Okay. So the motion's been withdrawn all the time. I withdraw my second. So why don't we, and I'm sorry, I'm just acting as a staff member to assist. But who would like to, and I'll just simply do this out of, for to have someone who has, who cannot be service chair acting to see if we can get a chair. I'll open the floor for the nominations since we haven't even convened the meeting, but for a chair to service chair for the meeting. Are there any nominations? League chair, who? No, I'm not a committee member. Oh, well, I don't know who would- The chair was not going to be wrong. You see, Anna had a very good suggestion, which was let's do introductions. So we know who's here. I can't see everybody that's here. So let's do introductions. Let's see how many committee members are here and then ask for nominations for chair. Okay. Jim Hallway, word for it. Okay. I'm counting, word brief. Richard Higley, word one. Greg Shepler, word five. Oh, Ramaco, looks like we're six. We're seven, but I've talked over Ram, I think. Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't- I'm sorry. I'll just call out on the screen as you appear sort of in the squares. So I think Rama, you were the first. Okay, Rama, Ramacutra Lakota, word six. Okay, and Lee, I think you're next. Richard Hume, alternate word four. Robert, you're next. Robert Bristol Johnson, word seven. Ann, you're next. Ann, Brandia, word eight. And I'm sorry, can I just ask who's speaking? This is Dan Richardson, I'm the city attorney and staff. Okay, sorry, I just think the video feed from the room is really small and I really can't make out who's in there. Thank you. Carolyn, you're next. I'm down on this, I'm just a visitor. Carolyn Bates, I'm word five, but I'm not on your committee. Okay, well, I'm just, everybody's introducing themselves, who's on the Zoom. Hi, George, on the maps. Okay, George, you're next. He might have his mic off. Yeah, we're not hearing you, George. Switch mics, your mic is on, but not on your case. George, you need to talk. He is, I think he's trying to switch to mic. Chris, well, he starts it off. Yeah, we'll come back to you, George. Chris, you're next. Chris Haisley, resident ward three downtown core. If I may make a suggestion, because it looks like there's a number of people that are attending in person at the conference room, but yet I'm seeing a number of laptops for those folks. It might be easier for the folks that do have laptops there to log in via Zoom as well, so that when they speak, we can actually see them and not the big room. I understand the need to have the room visible for recording purposes, but I think for facilitation it would be helpful if folks could hop on Zoom a little bit, just a friendly suggestion. Okay. Let's go to George, is your mic working? Okay, Jim, you're next. You're on there as well. Barbara. Hi, it's Barb Hedrick, I'm from Ward six. Okay, and Daniel. Recording. And then. Everybody's audio is muted. Okay. Yeah, I think that's everyone. No, we haven't talked seeing Daniel, someone, Greg Schaebler, someone. We're all here in City Hall. Oh, okay. Our interest. Okay, and I think at this point introduced everyone. So why don't we go back to the first order of business, which would be to nominate a chair and given the suggestions that have been made before, we'll open the floor to nominees or to service chair so that they may take over. I'll offer to self-nominate. Okay, nomination for Jim. It looks like Chris, you had your hand up. Yeah, I would like to participate in the public forum and I need to leave earlier because I'm facilitating the in-person portion of the words two and three NPA. So if it's okay with everyone, I would like to have the opportunity to go first. Well, let's finish one thing and then so there we can't get started. Okay. So we have a nomination for Jim. Is there nominating? I'll second that. Second by Rahmah. Yes. Okay. Any further discussion? All those who are eligible to vote as members in favor of making Jim the motion to make Jim the chair, please find the affirmative or aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Aye. Jim, I turn to being over to you. Question. It was a tough election. All right, I do want to respect people's time. So tell them what is first on the agenda. Call to order. Okay. Is it possible for Jim to get on Zoom because Jim, we can't see you or hear you well. So you might get echo if I do that. Yeah. All right, if you're not getting echo, then correct. I'm hearing echo. So other people are on. But we're hearing this speaker in the room. They have a PA in that room. Okay. If we're done talking about that, call to order 516. Next on agenda. The next item is the review and approval of prior reading minutes, if there are any, and I don't believe any minutes were collected at the public discussions. So I don't think there's anything. I'm not aware of minutes. So I think those are tabled. Next. The next item on the agenda is public comment. Okay. Public comment. Raise your hand if you'd like to speak. Can we see through hands? I see Chris. Go ahead, Chris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to speak to the report here. I've spoken, I think previously, why I believe we should have a downtown ward here. So I wanted to share with you some information about that. I have a PowerPoint here. I'm gonna share my screen. I believe that that feature has been enabled is what I was told. So without further ado, we'll get into the presentation or the commentary, I guess you could say. President, does that take more than a few minutes? So let's see if there's any other comments and then as soon as that's done for public comment, we'll move right to your... That works for me. Okay. I see Lee's hand. Go ahead, Lake. Go ahead, Lake. I didn't hear you. Are you asking for other, you want to do a head count of public comments? I'm just gonna move on to Chris has a presentation which he explained was gonna be longer than a reasonable time period. So I'm gonna put that at the end of the comment period. So if there are other comments that are a minute or two long, let's do those first then we're gonna get into the presentation. Any other comments? We do not understand a thing you're saying. We can't hear you, Jim. So just what I think Jim said was that because Chris has a presentation, if there's anyone else who wants to make a short public comment, he was gonna allow them to go first. Okay, I'll go first. I would like someone to put up on the screen at some point tonight, the resolution, the section of the resolution that defines next steps. It talks about this committee giving recommendations to council that then council will turn into a resolution that will be delivered to the assigned map maker. And that map maker will follow the directions, the recommendations of that resolution. And so I think it's very important that you look at the resolution and look at what the next steps are. And if you fail to deliver recommendations to city council, then you leave it completely open ended. The memo is pretty clear about priorities, but it keeps interjecting muddying factors. Like and some said, and we also heard, and that opens up the field. I mean, there's one place where she talks about somebody who proposed three wards with three counselors and three at large, which would be a council of six. And I'm like, whoa, I went to all these meetings. I went to all the public forum hearings, whatever you called them. I read all the surveys. I didn't hear that. But one of the reasons I may not have heard it is for the same reason that we have a hard time hearing what's going on in the Bush or conference room. And there's somebody on my screen here called conference room, he is. And I'm sure you know how to change your name on screen. And if you would put your name on screen, that would be really helpful. And the suggestion that people get on Zoom so that we can see and hear you clearly is very important. So I'm asking if you will put up on screen sometime soon in this meeting. He would have to leave the room and be in a sound isolated room. The counselor's resolution, which outlines the next steps, including the step that you're about to take tonight. So I hear what you're saying. I will say that to speak through Zoom was the reason you couldn't understand me before because when I use the mic of my computer, that is creating a slow feedback loop that makes it hard to understand. I turn that mic off and we'll speak loudly in this room so that one mic is in this room. Okay, can I see other comments? And I did hear what you were asking. Yes, Barbara. I heard during public comment from a large number of people that the current ward eight should be eliminated. So I think that should be in the memo that goes to city council. I also heard a number of people say that they would be open to having eight wards, not the current where eight ward is, but they would like eight wards, but maybe like a downtown ward. In other words, move ward eight downtown. And so that was the theme that I think should be added to the memo. And then the third theme I think should be added as people said, having seven wards is suboptimal because then the new north end has to infringe on the old north end. So I think those three themes could be wrapped, those three comments could be wrapped into one theme and add it to the memo. And then I'd like to make one last suggestion and that is on theme three in the memo, it says the ward should be compact. And I don't think anybody said that. They said they should be cohesive because you look at the new north end wards, ward four and ward seven, they're not compact. They're very long. And we're not saying that those need to be made into compact shapes, but rather neighborhoods need to be preserved. And so the word cohesive covers that. So theme three, I ask, please, that the word compact gets replaced with cohesive. Thanks everybody for your hard work. Any other public comments before we go to the presentation and then to the resolution on the screen? Richard? I'm surprised that Diane's made it for us. It's not in our contract yet. Okay. We exceeded the number of meetings. So I volunteered to step in. So I apologize to a certain extent that I'm sort of picking up the ball after playing a limited role with this committee. But I wanted to help facilitate to make sure that you had a chance to understand it. Thank you for doing that. Can we get on with the comments? Or get Chris or get Carol and then if we can stop talking about how we're doing the meeting we can get the meeting going. Caroline? I have worked with some Chris and Lee Terran and Barbara for the past couple of weeks on these maps and I more or less have represented word five in the King Street Maple Group neighborhood and also keeping the art district and businesses that go with them cohesive. So what we have done is we have changed the word five border on the North side a little bit in order to put more of the both sides of Maple Street into the downtown ward. And then there's this one long, I think it's a mile long, I don't know. But it encompasses both sides of Pine Street or in order to have both sides of Pine Street we put that into word five so that we have more businesses in word five with the art district. And then the downtown, the new downtown one will be the King Maple Street which is an older part of town and belongs with downtown. And I just wanted to say that I've also worked with them and we tried really, really hard. We were basically doing this to our hair or we could not get a word, seven word down of Burlington working out. No matter how we turned it around and everyone tried and we all failed and we really need to have eight wards and the downtown ward. And we've spent several hours, several days on the map that we're gonna present to Chris. And I think you all ought to really look at it carefully. And I hopefully you will agree with us as we have shifted borders back and forth so that we have both sides of Maple Street downtown, both sides of Pine Street, word five, the proper UB, students in lots of different wards and what we figured was at least similar to the downtown that used to be and that the old north end, the older part of the old north end is contained pretty much in the ward on the left whereas the newer part of the old north end is on the east. I guess that's right. Anyway, it's really, really good. We've spent a lot of time. I hope you'll do whatever is proper to be sure it gets in with the right wording. Thank you. So we have a link. Did you send us, did you send CEDAW or somebody? Do we have a link for it? Like you have a district builder. Yeah, Chris will talk about that in his presentation. All right, certainly. May I offer, we asked Dan from your legal perspective what Caroline is speaking of is a census block that would need to be split. Is our understanding that under structural circumstances that could be done, that it's irregular but that's what Caroline is talking about is a census block. In fact, in eight years ago, I asked Jay Appleton to slice the UVM green so that the line for ward eight didn't have to go up to Pearl Street unnecessarily and look like something dumb. So I think that if you can show that there's no population that's being affected when a block is cut, I think you can do that. Yes, but you do affect population. What is that long thing is- That might be a problem. We have to get the numbers. So I asked Dan if he could weigh in on the legal understanding about that. Okay, that's, it certainly can be done. It's just not favored, but if there's a justified reason for it and what I would say is that if you want to propose something like that in something, just have a justification and reason for it and the count is there. It's a pretty even, clear thing. There are two ones that long skinny ward one block and then the other one's a little smaller and when it does this on the top- Why don't we get there? Caroline, if you don't mind, I think Chris covers this in his presentation. No. No. Okay. All right, so we hear- We need a link to that now. Robert, please, so I hear Caroline, you would like us to be sure that we give that consideration to be added to the memo about the special circumstances that would justify the splitting of that block. Is that- Right, and there could be two that we split. What it basically is is that these blocks split streets. They cut it right down the middle. So the top half or the north half is in one ward and the bottom half is in another ward. And that's true of Maple Street and it's really important to have both sides of Maple Street together. But it's impossible the way they have done the blocks to do that and have the business art section which is part of those blocks in both cases separate and in Pine Street where it belongs or ward five. So there's two wards and we could show you which two Chris could show you those and what I've done, I'll have to send it to you. It's that I've hand drawn basically cutting Maple Street. Caroline, let's go on to Chris's presentation. He's got a lead. I'm sorry. Okay, go for it. He's got a half an hour. And stop cross talking. It really does make it hard to keep track of what's going on. So yes, Caroline, if you would, we'll see if we covered in a conversation and if it doesn't satisfy what you're asking to be submitted to the record, would you submit a map for the record so it gets in there? Just let me know how I should submit it. Okay, we'll do that. Thank you. Do we have comments or are we ready for Chris? I just wanted everyone to understand that I want to have both sides of Maple Street and down and down and the business art section below it in word five. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so we'll move on and then there's a deliberative section where we can revisit that with a little bit more detail and perhaps have a better. Thank you. Thank you. All right, any other comments before we go on to the presentation? And once twice, Chris, go ahead. Hey, thanks for your time. One of the themes that had come up a lot with the commentary and feedback that the committee had received over the coming months was a interest in creating a downtown district. And then we also heard from a number of people both from the community and members of the ad hoc committee that redistricting is kind of an abstract concept. And for some people, it's really hard to wrap your head around it. Hey, maybe if we had a couple of mocked up maps or some visuals, it would make things a little bit easier to understand what's going on. So to facilitate the discussion about a downtown ward, excuse me for a second. Sorry about that. So to facilitate the discussion, we, a group of people got together. I just, we met through kind of an organic grassroots type of process just to talk about, hey, what could we do to maybe, you know, make this a little more real for people. And as Carolyn said, we had representation from different parts of town. So basically when we decided to go down this path, if you will, in this endeavor, you know, we wanted to start with criteria. So one of the driving factors, I think for the folks that I talked to here in the downtown core was that the prevailing feeling that downtown ward, or downtown has been a part of ward three for a number of years. And we're kind of an afterthought, you know? It's been a long time since anyone from the downtown core has been elected toward to the city council. So really wanted to talk about why this would be a good thing for the city as a whole and not just the residents of downtown. I'm trying to get to the screen share portion. If you give me a moment, right? You're all able to see the screen? Yeah. Yes. All right. So that's the title. So to begin the process, you know, we wanted to have a set of criteria to get that criteria. And kind of went back to the public commentary and reviewed some of the things that were highlighted in the draft memo, which has been referenced previously this evening. So the goals that we had and when we got together to collectively do this exercise was to minimize the population difference between wards. That was our starting point. Now we said, well, we need to preserve neighborhoods and communities of interest. Let's use natural geographic features as boundaries because we heard a fair amount of feedback regarding that. And then we wanted to integrate the student population across multiple wards. So those were the, you know, the official, some of the official things that were to come out in the commentary. And then of course, in conversations with community members, there was kind of some additional things that were percolating up from different parts of the community that we felt also were important and we wanted to recognize and take into consideration. These were things like recognizing that the intervail is a significant natural boundary between neighborhoods in Ward 7 and the Old North End. We wanted to distribute the UVM campus housing across several wards so that students are integrated into the community. Having an entirely student ward, it kind of sets up an us versus them dynamic. And I don't really think it's appropriate to be, you know, making the student feel like they're not part of the community. And then keep the King Maple neighborhood attack was big right now. That neighborhood is cracked between Ward 3 and Ward 5. It is Vermont's most diverse neighborhood and it's also Vermont's largest community of color. So we felt that there was a real compelling reason to keep them together. Let me see here. So what the proposed ward configuration? We like the eight wards. Eight wards worked well from a math point of view. I think like anyone else who's actually taken the time to roll up your sleeves, dive in and actually try to draw a map, particularly a seven ward map based on the previous 1993 map. I think we've all come to the conclusion or at least the folks that I've talked to is that seven wards is problematic for a number of reasons but the biggest reason is is that to make the math work and to get equal populations in the ward, there's really no way to make that work without coming down into the new old North End and taking a chunk of that and lumping that in with the new North End. So we felt that was problematic. There seems to be why I said support for an eight ward configuration. So we said, well, you know, what can we do to address the concerns that we've heard from the community? So one of the goals was to eliminate the quote unquote salamander, the current Ward 8 that has a unique shape, I guess you could say. We also wanted to make sure that the old North End and new North End would retain their traditional boundaries. Lakeview Terrace, we've heard that it was very important for them to remain in the old North End so we tried to honor that. University Terrace is assigned to Ward 6, which I believe is their traditional home or have been in years past. We also wanted to retain Edmunds Middle School and Ward 6 as the traditional polling location. We did look at other options there but there really weren't a huck of a lot there and we also wanted to consider a new Ward 8 that would give the downtown core meaningful representation in the decision-making process. So why eight wards and not some other number? Well, again, eight ward works well for a number of reasons. It was easier to maintain the balance, the population across multiple wards. And because we were able to balance the population, we made it easier to preserve neighborhoods and communities of interest. We also tried to address the number of the concerns voiced by the community which were articulated on the previous slide. We wanted to provide downtown with its own voice on the council. We wanted to distribute the student population across eight wards or multiple wards and this would result in a target population of about 5,600 residents per ward. Having also heard a lot of folks that said, hey, let's start with the seven-word mapping. Again, I was one of those people, I thought this was a good idea but when I really got into it I was like, man, this is a challenge for a number of reasons but what is important to highlight from that previous map in 1993 is that based on the city's population at that time divided by the number of wards, we get a target ward population of about 5,590 people. Now, fast forward to today, year 2022 using the 2020 census data with eight wards. If we do the math there, coincidentally it comes out to 5,593 which is almost nearly identical to what it was in ward seven. So since we heard some feedback that, hey, people kind of liked that number, we thought, hey, eight wards with the current population seems to work pretty well. So why specifically a downtown ward? Well, downtown is a community of interest. We're different from the old North end and the rest of ward three. We've got church street marketplace, we've got a lot of retail establishments, we have bars, we have restaurants, it's the city's financial center and most importantly, we have residents who live here and the things that we are concerned about are the downtown core, some of the quality life issues are not exactly the same types of issues that resonate in the more residential parts of ward three which is where downtown currently resides. We also felt that downtown residents and businesses would benefit from having a city council and representation that could focus specifically on issues to the downtown core which are oftentimes different than concerns that are voiced in more traditional residential areas of the city such as the old North end. We also wanna point out that traditionally, downtown did have its own ward for more than 100 years dating from the city's founding in 1865, right up until the redistricting that took place in 1967. Those maps are available on the city's website for those of you who wanna take a look there and kind of see how things have changed over the course of time. Additionally, a downtown ward would balance residential and commercial interests. We've not had a city counselor from the downtown core in more than 20 years. So there's a feeling from people who live down here that we're kind of an afterthought. People who represent us often live north of Pearl Street. They live in the old North end and while they're very cognizant and familiar with the issues in that part of town, our issues are kind of fall to the wayside on sometimes. But we also recognized historically the boundaries there and included as part of ward A, we wanted to take on the Bewell Bradley Street historic district, which is a traditionally large number of off-campus students interspersed with a number of long-time residents. And we've heard very clearly from long-time residents that they did not want to be in an exclusively student ward. So we tried to recognize their concerns to bring them into a more diverse ward that included not only students, but actual long-term residents as well. We also felt again that restoring or unifying the King Maple neighborhood in a downtown ward would benefit a significant community of interest as well. Again, King Maple is the most diverse neighborhood in Vermont. It was also Vermont's largest community of color and we wanted to try to make sure that those folks had a meaningful voice as well. So what would this look like visually? Well, that's the next slide. This was kind of the map we put together. We look at this as a starting point. We think it's a good starting point, but we recognize that things may have to change as the community discussion goes on. But again, being able to visualize kind of takes this from an abstract concept and kind of brings it into the realm of reality so people could get a visual as to, hey, how could this work bigger picture? So I do have some stuff that I put together. Ideally, I'd like to get that to y'all in the form of a PDF. If I am not able to do that, I will certainly be sending over links to the district builder page so that folks can review these maps if it is something they would want to do. And I will endeavor to get hard copies. So that they can be included in the official record. The other part that came up often, not only as we were going through this process and exercise of kind of trying to visualize how things could be, was how to address Burlington student population. And again, we wanted to come from a position of balance and making sure we had equal populations. We wanted to make sure people had a good voice and that there wasn't student heavy one way or the other. So for ward one, what ended up happening is that there was about 3,500 students on campus. This would include the athletic campus, living and learning center, redstone law departments as well. The numbers here were taken from the census data blocks that was available in the district builder application. Keep in mind that the number of beds available as defined by UVM may be slightly different. I don't have readily access to that data. I do have access to the census data. We know what that is. It's quantifiable. So we want with the census data. Ward two would inherit the Trinity campus and the Jean Mans residence hall. This was necessary to maintain population sizes. As I think everyone is aware, the ward one population had grown substantially, which was kind of one of the main driving factors behind the whole redistricting exercise. And in order to really rectify that, there's really no way around it. Ward one would take on a very different shape geographically. Ward six would have redstone campus in the Champlain housing, college housing, which it currently has. So not much change there, but it's approximately the same as Ward one. And again, the rationale there was, let's try to provide balance and really integrate our student populations into the larger community so that they felt welcome here. Finally, Ward eight, the proposed downtown ward and the pink block that I showed you a few slides ago would contain both on-camp and off-campus students. Eagles Landing was about 300 students at St. Paul and Maple Street. Buell Bradley Street was much larger. I don't have the number of my fingertips, but I will have it in the final slides to go to you guys. I want to say it was around 600. It might be a little bit more than that. And then Hill Gardens, which was traditionally part of the original downtown ward. It was about 600 people. So we really, again, tried to give those folks a home in the downtown ward as well. In conclusion, we believe an eight-word map works well for a number of reasons. It addresses a number of community concerns and balances populations across multiple warrants. It preserves neighborhoods and communities of interests. It uses national geographic features as boundaries and it distributes the student population across multiple wards. So in light of these circumstances, I'd like to request that the ad hoc committee include a formal recommendation in the final report to create a new downtown ward that would replace the existing ward eight. So that's all I have for y'all today. I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity and I would be happy to take any questions that folks may have regarding process or anything that may be of interest to them and how this all came about because I believe in transparency and accountability. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So the next thing on the agenda is deliberation. So as part of the deliberation, I propose we do two things. One is start that conversation around Chris's presentation while he's here. And then after we've asked him questions and feel satisfied with that part of the deliberation, I'd like to honor Lee's request about putting up the language for the resolution so we can discuss that. And then thirdly, in the deliberation, before we open up to whatever else, if people are amenable to this order, that I'd like to revisit to anybody's comments to Carol's comments, so that the three of those things all get an opportunity for the committee to deliver it a little bit on. Anybody object to that process before we go into general deliberation? I just wanted to make an addition to Chris. He has two ways for the two new north-end wards to be presented. He has an east-west location in the north-south. So you might want to see those. Okay, sounds good. So Chris, I see your version next, but do you have in your presentation or with your materials what Carolyn is talking about so that that's official that we can add to the report? Chris. Also, second, that that be presented now, if possible. It looks like Chris has left. Yeah, he said that he had limited time originally. Yeah, he spent a lot of time. Carolyn, is the map that, are you and Chris showing us this? Can you speak for this? What? Yes. Okay, before we get out of order here. I want someone to... They're gonna go like people in green pants. Robert, I don't need to be rude. We're gonna go in order by raising hands just cause just like any good conversation one at a time. So Chris, thank you for coming back. There was a question for you and then Richard next and then we'll hear Robert's. So Chris, the question. Yeah, so I'll address the first question that came via chat by way of Mr. Richardson about sending the materials over. The answer that is yes, it's gonna probably be tomorrow because I do have to get over to the community center to facilitate the words two and three NPA. I put the map, I put the map link up. Okay, excellent. No problem, Chris. I just need it for the minutes. So if you get it to me tomorrow, then it's not a problem. Thank you Mr. Richardson. So Richard. Thanks very much. That was really, really interesting. I'm very interested in what is included in Ward 1. You described the demographics but can you just bring up what Ward 1 would look like with a couple of streets? Yes, I'm pulling it up right now and it just logged in here and I'll show you what that could potentially be. Because we must lose about 600 people, I should think. Yeah, we had to balance the wards and in order to do that, Ward 1 had to lose geographic area as well and there were multiple attempts to do this. So I'm very interested to hear your feedback as the representative of Ward 1. My computer, I lost the internet briefly, it's being temperamental. So I think it's trying to load right now. And when it does, I will go back and do the share screen here. Alrighty, I got it. I'm gonna share the screen. Let me zoom in to you, Burlington. So we tried to keep Ward 1 close to what it was as much as possible but we did have to take out the geographic chunk here to move into Ward 2 just to make the numbers work and any which way of slice at Ward 1 was going to look different in some way, shape, or form. I don't know that there's really a good solution but this is the one we came up with. So where's North Street and where's Willard Street? Just the guy that's orientated. Yeah, absolutely. So North Street is here, Willard Street is here, and North Prospect is here. So that neighborhood that I happen to have a personal interest in is preceded. So that part of North Prospect Street, Loomis, Henry, Brooks, not Brooks maybe, yeah. Yeah, I can zoom in additionally, hold on a second. Is that better for you all? Yeah, this would probably be very, very problematic to my constituency. If you wanna circle back with me, Richard, I'm happy to talk to you about permutations. This is not my part of town and I would defer to your expertise there. If you have an alternate idea or solution and how we could make the numbers work, I would certainly be willing to. I kind of anticipated it actually about three months ago. So I'm not surprised. But you're taking part of the heart and soul of award and sending it elsewhere. And that will be very problematic, I think to a large number of owner occupiers who carry a very strong identity with Ward 1. So I will just leave it at that, register it as far as the minutes are concerned. The only other thing I would say is that six years ago or eight years ago, whenever it was, there was a very strong objective of the mayor to reduce the size of the city council. And if we have eight wards, you haven't made any suggestion as to how many city councilors per ward would probably want eight or fewer. But if it's two councilors per ward, then that would expand obviously the city council. Otherwise, you're going to one councilor with some districts or alternatively some at large. So I think that needs to be thought through. So yeah, if I can speak to your concerns or if you have anything I can speak to some of those issues. So we recognize again that because of the population increase there was Ward 1 was geographically going to be different than what it is. And it's like, where are you gonna pull the population from to make the numbers work? And so we tried to balance all of the competing criteria. And while I certainly understand the concerns about being moved from your traditional home in Ward 1 into a different ward, the trade-off we felt was it was either leave that portion of town into a new ward which was gonna be predominantly students which could potentially dilute the representation of the long-term residents which seemed to be a concern or preserve the neighborhood. So I think we took the approach that it was more important to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and to keep the homeowners and the long-term residents together rather than lump them in with a ward that would most likely because of the population shift to be predominantly a student-oriented ward which we had heard was problematic from a number of reasons for a number of people. So I don't think that there's really a great solution on this. It was kind of the best we had to work with but I appreciate the feedback and we'd be happy to circle back with you and collaborate and see if we can find something that may be more workable for the persons of that ward. The new North End is very, very parochial about keeping the status quo. I think the residential part of Ward 1 will feel exactly the same way. So I'm vivid at that. Yeah, so can I make a point for you about time? My understanding is that the timing is that this is all due tomorrow. So either can you, or Richard, make a few, can you in this moment or between now and tomorrow figure out what are some alternate streets you might like to adjust for the account for that difference? Can you make a suggestion that you may be able to make that adjustment or you need to do that before tomorrow or do you see what I'm talking about at the time? I see what you're talking about at the time but I'm not going to do that because I don't think it's part of what we were charged to do. And if we were charged to do this with this illustration as excellent as I think it is and lots of respects, it would go right down the tubes as far as the people who have shown an interest in Ward 1 and feel a heavy identity with Ward 1 and it would not be with their approval than the representation from Ward 1 as far as this document is concerned would be completely different. So a fair point, that is true that it's a charge here. So Chris, if you could make- Yeah, so I'd want to try to address some of the other points I have another meeting to be doing five minutes so if I could respond to the things that were brought up. In your time, as much as possible, we need to move on. Can you make the note? He wants to hear comments. He wants to respond just quickly. Yeah, he had asked about the number of representatives so I wanted to speak to that. Richard, if you want to, I understand your concerns about what the charge of the committee and if you wish to speak with me about this in your capacity as a private citizen and as a resident and not as an ad hoc committee member that was what I was suggesting. With regard to the representation, there was a slide in there. I didn't really hammer it, but with the population, populations growing up, the last iteration, the population went up, but representation went down. Population has continued to grow up and we heard a lot about maintaining the eight wards and the traditional number of reps. So in my mind, that's eight wards, two counselors per ward, a total of 16 counselors total, which I think dovetails very well with representation. That was a huge driving factor for a number of people to make sure that we had adequate representation on the council. And as the population increases, it seems to reason logically that the number of representatives should increase as well. The, it looked like, Anne, you had a question as well at some time. Well, I'm gonna put an end here with the comments are on, but to Richard's point, we've spent a lot of time about math when math isn't really part of our, so the comments and questions are pushed forward. We've entertained math for a long time, two thirds of the meeting have gone by. So I'd like to just move on to the next section. Respectfully, I don't need to. Nope, none at all. I appreciate the committees, the opportunity to speak to the committee and to allow this dialogue to happen. And again, this is the starting point and it sounds like there's still more work to do. So thank you, Richard, for your feedback. I'm hopeful that we may have an opportunity to work together on this yet again. Thank you so much. Excellent. Thank you so much, Chris. All right, on to Lee's request. Dan, are you capable of bringing up that resolution? Let me see if my share screen. Actually, I actually have that. So, if you're able to do that, we'll bring it up. Yep, actually, Daniel, I have the final version of the sign. Amazing. All right. No, stop my share. Okay, Lee, one says up. Can you help direct where you want us to be focused on? It's towards the end. And it is, I can't read it on screen. It's towards the end where it tells what the council does next. Keep going. And you'll have to, I'll have to ask Dan to read it because I can't read it on screen. I believe we're talking about line 49. Yes. And to see further results of the mapping specialist. No, it starts with, and the committee will report back to the council. Start with line 39. The committee will report back to the council by its last meeting, forget the date. And the council will use this community feedback to offer guidelines by resolution to a mapping specialist identified by the city council. The resolution will include guidance on the preferred council board structure, including, can Dan, can you read that please? Sure, concepts of board slash district representation versus award only or district only configuration, the number of counselors, number of boards and or districts and whether regard to incumbency will be considered. Then I'm happy to keep reading the next resolution. It says, and be it further resolved that if the census results show population deviation of more than 10% in the existing districts and board awards, then the mapping specialist will use this guidance and the census figures that will be available by September 30 to redraw the lines if necessary keeping in mind the need to respect neighborhoods contiguousness and compactness as well as redrawn lines with consideration to the current lines when possible given the other directives and be it further resolved that the mapping specialist and the city attorney will report to the city council the council's last meeting in November and will include a proposed map or set of maps for the council to consider and be it further resolved council agrees that we'll try to place a redistricting plan on the March, 2022 ballot. Okay, so the key part is what you're all here for tonight is to deliver recommendations to council. So your particular focus as you read that you wanted us to give thought to is that we are presenting some information regarding the map or help me understand what you wanna make sure we're getting out of that. Not the map that the council that the committee will report back to the council and the city council resolution will include guidance on the preferred and those preferred that section is what the committee is supposed to report back to city council. Okay, so those particular things, yeah, go ahead. Yes. And the memo doesn't do that. I don't know if I'm muted or not but just be glad to get the microphone. Well, all that language harkens back to line number 39 which 38 to 39 which the community input will be taken and the committee will report back and the council will use this community feedback. That's what our main charge is. There's nothing in here that says a recommendation says that we are to use community feedback. I think Diane's report summarized the fact that there was very little community feedback. If the ad hoc committee wants to go ahead and make recommendations on a map then that's fine but that's not what our original charge was. And we should just be honest with the fact that we're changing that emphasis and bringing our own thoughts into it. That being said, I'm not opposed to Chris's map. I liked a lot of it but all I'm just saying is that it's not part of our original charge. So I would offer... Who's speaking? Who is speaking please? This is Greg Shumlin, ward five. Thank you. So great. I'm not talking about the map. Yes. So what I would say is that in my experience of talking to the community, some of the feedback was we want to enter into the conversation about the map. So the fact when we ask feedback, part of a larger part than certainly they projected the counselors anticipated was people saying we want to be part of doing the map. So my thought is if we could have a motion that says we take Diane's memo as is and we take the notes from what we finished up in our conversation as an addendum so that the entirety is presented and that is a reasonable point from my experience of holding other meetings that I could do in our own words. That's what people wanting to do is now. So I think it's usually said that way, not this side but I think that's been sort of a back and forth. So I'd like to, if someone would make that motion is it possibly about making the rest of our stuff as opposed to change? I would like to move that we, each one of the eight of us gets to write our own short addendum that gets to be added to the memo. But let the memo go as it is. I just think that each of us should have that opportunity to do that. Was that what you were suggesting, Jim? Something like that? Something like that. So before we ask for a second on that, is that a reasonable approach that if you submit Diane's proposal as is and any representatives who would like to add to it, that's included in the record? Sure. Okay. So that's a fairer motion. Shall we get a second or a clarification or a discussion on that? Got a second? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Then I'm going to have to pull because I couldn't tell what the difference is. So first of all, we need to stop sharing the screen that is shared there so we can see everybody. And then with a clear thumbs up on the screen and here for I. So I got I, I got one, two, someone else, Greg, so I got to that. What do you got, Dan, what do you sense? One, two, three, four. Eyes, nays. I would, this is Ann, Brandia. I would just like to hear again clearly what it is that we're voting on. If I may. Yes, as I understand the motion is a motion to submit Diane's report as drafted with an addendum that would include a summary from each of the members of the ad hoc committee who wish to contribute a summary of their feedback and or recommendations. I think that Robert, does that capture your motion? Yes, it captures it very well. Okay. So are we assuming there's going to be recommendations that are different than Diane's or just in addition to Diane's? It is whatever you want to say as being one of the eight of us, but I'm saying to also adopt our, to adopt Diane's memo as it is, but for each of us to be able to write something that we want to say with regard to it. So it's a plus as opposed to one or the other. Right. Yeah. Does that, just to be clear, does that change anybody? Yeah. I'm in agreement with that. I just wouldn't want somebody to contradict the content of Diane's recommendation because I feel that would be self-defeating and not very helpful. Oh, it's about clarification of stuff. Then what we have to do is we have to actually take Diane's memo and item by item, you will have to disassemble the memo, item by item, vote on it in my opinion, because without a few loops of feedback, there's no way that Diane can actually write a memo that is representative of us as a group. I see Greg's again. One of the things that I thought that we were going to be doing here today was addressing what some people felt that we didn't do at the last meeting and that was have some sort of vote in favor of Diane's summary. I thought that was one of the things that we would do. If Robert's point or if Anne's point is that we shouldn't contradict that, one of the ways we can address that is that if we have, and it would be great if it was a unanimous vote, but I don't mean to tell people how to vote, that if we had a vote in favor of her report, then we could also put some other opinions in the area of the individual opinion, but I do think that her report was a fair summary under the circumstances, and I would encourage people to support it. Okay, so, Richard. I think I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here. I thought this meeting was to tighten up Diane's report. And then make sure that the committee agreed with it, which I don't, I agree with the essence of it, but I think it could be much more forcibly written, much more succinctly and much more able to be understood by someone who was reading it, and then talk about the way forward as the previous resolution. So I've got this all asked of that place really. I'm not satisfied that this number of Diane's is a good representation of what we've done, but even the first paragraph, I'm very in significant disagreement. So also, I would say just to be slightly off subject, we've been to four NPAs to discuss this and we're now being asked to put together an amendment that is completely out of less fields. And I will sign off on that. So with which amendment? Let's talk about, for instance, Maverick. Yeah. So, thinking about Robert's rules, I have an account of a motion of six or, yeah, six to one, and I'm assuming an abstention. Somebody abstain on the vote. Oh, I think actually, sorry, the one count is we didn't include George because his microphone isn't working, but he did in the chat. Gotcha. Okay. It's an I, so it's technically seven I's. Seven to one. So I think not to lessen the points of Anne, Greg and Richard, which are differing views after the fact of the vote. I would say that some of you, some people felt like the report was a singular reflection and some people felt it wasn't. We asked if people would like to have an opportunity to add to it, took a vote, seven one. So it might be that pass. So if you wanna add to that, then that's how that pass. And just be mindful of the respect that I think people were asking in that, so that no one is failing. I think that's the best way to do that. Anyway, moving forward, there was the next thing was Carolyn's segment. You wanna refresh our memory, the part about King Maple that you wanted us to deliberate on a little bit. Just to have a second, I was just making it better so you could understand it. Now let's say I gotta find you underneath all of these. Here we go. I was just redoing the plan so it made more sense. And what it is is that there are two blocks, census blocks. And on the northern half, or the northern portion is residential and belongs with Maple Street and downtown. And on the southern part, and it's the art and the enterprise zone, and they should stay with word five or the rest of the art and enterprise zone is. We're talking about a large block that's immediately west of Pine Street. Yes, it's about a mile long. Below Maple Street and West. Right, and then also the little one that's next to just east of it, that's the other side of Pine Street. And you're suggesting that that block be cut in a map that you guys are proposing is what you're saying. Actually both, there should be two blocks, one that big long one on the west side of Pine Street and then the little one on the east side of Pine Street but just below Maple Street because I want a little of Maple Street in downtown. I don't want half of it in word five and you can't do it because you also need to have the art and enterprise zone in word five and it should all be in word five. It's only 4% of the city and it should not be put in downtown. And we can't the way the blocks are made. And I just drew it. Let's see. I'm trying to figure out how a way I could. Arts Riot Ward five, but north of Arts Riot in this new downtown ward? Arts Riot itself is just below it. So it's in word five, but there's the, it's just not, I'm not saying Arts Riot. It's just the art community, the artist community is within the enterprise zone, which is also business, but a lot of those businesses have something to do with artists too. Where the generator is. Yes. Yeah, well, let's see. What it is is that the one I want to keep in word five is all of the Kona custom, the Kona metal light. That whole area, the top half of it is in Maple Street. So I want to split that so that all the Kona group stays in word five, but the Maple Street residential areas goes into the downtown. And then immediately across the street, there's another section, but it's really, really, really long and includes all of the barge canal. Right. And just the top little bit is the Bob and Mill group of people and several private homes that's Maple Street. And because Maple and King Street have, I think it's 20 large apartment buildings. This is one of them. It should stay with Maple Street, but the bottom part of it is the Curtis Lumber, the Department of Public Works, the old building, my years. Barge canal. Those all should stay in word five. And I've drawn them back and I've shown you where the lines are. And then I say residential, downtown and arts and entertainment, word five or business. And whether I said word five on it or not, and it's just trying to finish it. I just meant art and enterprise zone. So do I understand, Karen, that you would have a sample map that... Right. I don't know whether I can... I'm looking at it. Okay. So what I propose again... Oh, well, that's right. We can all click on that map, can't we? No, no, no. We're not gonna go back to map making. We do have to recognize that that has not been a chart. What I might propose though, is, Caroline, you are in word five? Yes. Greg, you are the representative to that. If you would like to submit your community feedback to Greg, Greg, if you would like to add that, then do so if not, then that stands. That's your community feedback to you, the representative. Is that a fair process? I don't know. Maybe you guys all ought to say it's okay to break up. It's not in charge to talk about the map. Yeah, I'm fine with that. It just needs to be forwarded or linked or sent to me today, tonight, because things are due tomorrow. You just tell me what I need to do and where to send it and I will do it. There's a link on chat. So, Caroline, do you write on the city hall? My email's right on the city hall. Redistrict it. Do you see? Okay, Caroline, you got that. So- No, I'm confused. Can you go into the map and give me his address? I'll put it right in the chat. There you go. And I will give you my email, okay? Well, once you send it, you know how to find me. There's my email and you'll send the email to the person. Being mindful that it's six, 17, we got the room to six, 30. So logistics, you can work out with Greg. Okay, so I'll send that to you, Greg. Thank you. Thank you. Other topics that we wanna make sure we deliver on before we move on to whatever's next on the agenda here, which is really kind of a wrap up. So what other topics do we wanna be sure we're touching on to include this committee's work? Yes, Greg. I thought that one of the things that we were supposed to do at some point and would be helpful for the future would be to make some recommendations for the next redistricting, which thankfully is not going to be happening soon. But it seems as if, and I might be completely wrong on this, but it seems as if this process and the last process was just flawed in some sort of way. I'm not pending any blame on anyone. And I do think one of the drivers, however, was the lack of time. And I just, and unfortunately, there's never enough time, but I do think that that's one of the things that the next committee should have more of is that the process needs to begin longer and it needs to be elongated so that there's a fair amount of time to give the community feedback to perhaps deal with some of the map making. I would like to see a clear resolution that empowers the redistricting committee to do some of this map making. So it doesn't seem like we're going beyond the scope of our authority. That is briefly touched upon in the final notes section of Diane's memo, but that is also something that I'm trying to go into in detail on in my demo because I felt like the same thing you did, the lack of engagement and sort of like the lack of city support are areas where if that was provided for in the resolution, not just two or three public meetings as being what are charges that that definitely would probably allow us to engage more people and ensure a more democratic process. Okay, I think that at some point, Greg, and it sounds like it is the dinner scope of the resolution by what you're saying, is that right? Yep, it was mentioned in Diane's memo and certainly it captures the feedback that we got from other people in sort of our own sentiment. Excellent. Excellent, so I've heard suggestions for next. So I think that we'll add that. You're going to add, okay, Dan, we'll do that. So are there other points we would like to sort of pass forward for the next generation besides calendar, good calendar management and a desire for the community to be involved and engaged in the man-making. Those are two bullet points, additional bullet points that we want to advise the next council. Go ahead. I think we should advise them to- Robert, so it's going to be Greg, Richard, then Robert. Sorry. I would like clarification that maybe Dan can help out with this. I would like clarification on the role that the public meeting law has on an ad hoc committee, especially if we are not in decision-making body. My understanding of the public meeting law is to have decisions made in a public way and to prevent sort of in-camera discussions out of the public eye and then all of a sudden coming in and making those decisions. But if we are in an ad hoc committee that has no power to make a decision, it would seem like the public meeting law would not apply to a group under those circumstances. That would allow us to communicate much more effectively and be much more effective and efficient in our meetings and any sort of process related to that. Sure, I'd be happy to talk about that. And unfortunately, I'm just calling up the public meeting law so that I read from it because to get the wording exactly as it's phrased. So the problem is that when you define... So first of all, this committee is subject to the public meeting law in a way it is defined because it's a committee created by this council and says, so if you look at 312 under the public meeting law, all meetings of a public body are declared to be open to the public at all times, except as provided in section 313 of this title, which is the executive section. No resolution rule, regulation, appointment of formal action should be considered binding, except as taken or made in such open meeting, except as provided in 313, this title and meeting of public bodies subject to a public combination rule, a public body shall electronically record on public hearings held to provide a forum for public comment to pose rule, public shall have access, copies of such electronic recordings as are described in 316 title, and then it lists out the public participation. But the problem is that even if you are not making a decision, which is a big part of the public meeting, the function of a public board to meet, to deliberate, to discuss is covered by the public meeting so that it's, and its meeting is in fact defined, meeting means a gathering of a quorum of the members of a public body for the purpose of discussing the business of the public body or for the purpose of taking action. So discussions have to be on the record. And that's a substantial indication. Certainly, and I'll just add this, maybe gratuitously, but it's for what it's worth. This is not an uncommon problem when you have a body like this. What I would suggest, you know, and so the format that this went through and I think what part of this, part of what your reaction is, is that one charge of this committee was to go out and just gather a public response at feedback. And I think in some respects, I'm hearing from some of the comments around the table and on the screen, that people were a little frustrated with the way that handout that they had, I think three meetings in which there was no one or limited numbers of people coming. And so why have those meetings if that's what the purpose is and maybe part of it is the map. And I'll just finish up for a quick better issue. In my poll, we got five minutes left a little bit more. All I would say is that, you know, there are different ways to start structure that going forward and have to talk about further. Yeah, I think that would be useful to note in there. I have Richard, Robert and then George. Richard. This committee has been, it's not an ad hoc committee on redistricting. It's an ad hoc alternates meeting, which I wasn't completely clear how the city wanted alternates to be nominated. We were appointed by the NPAs, reported back in our case four times to the NPA, took guidance from the NPA. And my vote as their representative will reflect that all the comments that I've heard from ward one, which is probably reported, I think more comprehensive detail than many other board. And my position is in full faithfulness with that. Even before our first meeting, we had done a survey in ward one and had 33 responses. The city wide survey only got 69 responses, which some were also probably partly from ward one. Ward one has been completely engaged in this in every respect. Other than the ad hoc, as Leo described it, indie map taking operation. But I wasn't aware of until at the end of last week or the beginning of this week. And we even had an NPA meeting yesterday in the same room, I was sat there and none of this was discussed. So what was the point? The last time there was a committee on redistricting our representative who took his responsibilities because he's a lawyer, that's very important. Full integrity, honorable and all the rest of it. He was so disgusted with the process that he walked out and actually has left the city. I'm not gonna leave the city, not yet. This is a nonsense. This is an absolute travesty. And I won't be a part of it. Robert. Well, I was going to suggest that as a committee, we might ask the council to continue our mandate, just to continue to be a committee and to continue to get input. Because once we decided that we're not gonna get anything on this town meeting either official or not official, we got a long time actually to be making a decision on our word redistricting and to get more input from people. And I think that tonight we got some very, a lot of input, but we're seeing that there's consequences to it and that's what we had eight years ago. But anyway, eight years ago, that redistricting committee, which I was not actually not on, did submit maps to the city council. I don't know if that was asked for or not, but I don't see how our, if we're not going to as a committee, I think as residents and citizens of the city, there's nothing stopping us from doing that as individual people. And so, I mean. We're not going to be looking at maps. Okay, so I think your point is taken just being mindful of time. I understand you to say you want to recommend to the committee that they are to the council to continue our mandate. So we'll note that as a point, George. Hi, can you hear me? I guess I was, I had a lot of thoughts that I just haven't had a chance to speak in a while. I'm trying to gather them now, but one thought I had was you discussed earlier, Jim, that our mandate was not to create maps and Greg mentioned if we're going to address maps in any way, maybe we should address the fact that we're kind of changing our mandate. So I guess I wanted to just get a straw pool of if people thought or agreed with me that after going through this whole process that they think maps should be a part of the process or not, and this would be in order to advise the next committee. I'm happy to do that vote. It is 630. We could do that as a vote. And then unless there's anything else we should then be able to wrap up. Is that fair? Or go ahead, Dan. I just have one other item of business with us to select who you want to have start delivering your report to the council. This will presumably go on the agenda for Monday the 24th. Okay, so we'll do that as well. Sorry, couldn't get you right at 630. Okay, so does anyone want to, George, you want to turn that into a motion? We can quickly take a poll on that. I motion to advise the next redistricting committee. To consider putting maps to the public for direct feedback. Okay, do I have a second? A second. I think Robert was the first, second person number. Everybody doesn't matter. All right, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Seeing, oh, I see it was okay. So it looks like Robert, were you opposed? I didn't. I'm not opposed. What happened, I didn't realize. I didn't want to discuss it in mindful of past time. So I just need to know your. I'm not. You're in favor, gotcha. And were you raising your hand? Or was that just the lingering from before? I was raising my hand to vote yes. Oh, gotcha. All right, all right. So it looks like that motion passed. So we'll make sure that is officially in there. We have one last segment, which is how the presentation will be done on presumably the 24th. Do we have ideas or nominations or will you do that? How it should be done? I thought Diane was going to present and we were going to be at the meeting. But was that within her contract? I'll have to confirm, but I mean, I added this to the agenda with the idea that if one to three of you wanted to be there, essentially to perhaps articulate the sides that I am and if the council had any questions, it seemed like a reasonable opportunity for you to do so. I think that sounds like a good idea. Does anybody else have any different thoughts or shall we suggest that and pick three people or four or whatever? Any different ideas going once, going twice, going to the crickets? So I'm going to presume that the suggestion is Diane presents and a minimum of three people get selected tonight to also be in the room to answer articulate questions. Does that sound like a reasonable approach to everybody? Right. I'm okay with that suggestion. However, it seems as if no pun intended, that we are, as a group, we're all over the map and have a lot of different things. So I'm not comfortable. I know that Richard has spoken quite emotionally about his view on word one. I can't carry that torch for him. So I would, I think I would feel more comfortable if everyone who could be there attended and have that opportunity to speak based upon their particular thoughts. It makes sense that, so we can either suggest that people go or we can say a minimum of three and all, I mean, all publicly be capable of being there and being available. So do we want to set a number in name or you, yeah. The only reason, I think I would say, just having been at so many city council meetings this fall is, you know, there's a limited space that just, so all eight of you are not going to be able to sit at a table plus Diane. And I think that's perfectly reasonable. The idea that Diane might be sort of the general overall spokesperson, my only suggestion to have, you know, a small delegation of you was just to sort of have on top of that because I think you have a perspective from this committee and experience that's, you know, Diane can present the overall and this is what we agreed upon, but I think you as committee members can say yes. And this is our strong feelings. And, you know, maybe not every single strong feeling gets communicated, but it's the idea that there's a small segment to deliver some of these messages or maybe underlying pieces. And the idea is that you as representatives, you know, Diane's someone who's been hired by the city to facilitate. And I think, you know, she's done the jobs that she was tasked to do what we'll do, but it's the idea that, you know, he was the voice that's going to show us. And then I'm going to just hold to see how many people are planning on going. Go ahead, Robert. I just want to say that we can come to that meeting whether we're the select three or not. And all of us have at least a right of two minutes of public forum time. So it's possible that all of us could be heard that evening one way or another. So I'm hearing Dan's wisdom on that and I would agree with him on that. May not be coming across something that the chair probably shouldn't weigh in. But what I would suggest is that that we have a small contingent who are expected to be able to speak more than just their obligatory two minutes. And then if there are more people who want to speak within the two minutes or whatever, but I think that that keeps it sort of contained. So that makes sense to this. I also like I'm trying to read the screen from somebody in the chat. Oh, that was just me on additional stuff for the next redistricting committee. Advising. OK, so so just out of just out of curiosity, how many people are planning on attending that members? We have more than three. There we go. Could I suggest we maybe just allocate an even amount of time for everyone to say their piece if they'd wish? In addition to Diane's presentation, we have to remember that it's a council's meeting. So we can hope to coordinate that. That makes good sense, George. But we do have to remember it's a council's meeting and hope that they will hear Diane and hear us in a reasonable way. But they may be constrained by other issues of the night. George, you kind of attend, right? Yeah, I just meant. Yeah. Even between us all. That I think that's a great idea. So we wouldn't be violating meeting a lot if we were disbanded tonight. Are we? No, you wouldn't be. There you go. So it sounds like we have a small contingency. So unless there are anything else we should touch on before we follow this committee's work Oh, yes, I do have a couple. One other thing, but anybody else? I'm going to leave a review. One that I have is the minutes from tonight. Can we ask CEDO to sit? That was in their staffing support of NVA's capacity. Watch this video, we'll each try to do the comments that we feel we're trying to do. But I'd also like the staff to take the minutes so that there's minutes for this meeting as well. And I am curious about the minutes that we don't have for previous meetings. That should be clarified. We should not have these public meetings. They should have minutes. That is what the statute calls. Okay. Anything else? Going once for tonight? Now, I have, can you include my map in your minutes, please? Yeah, we'll include in that that you and Greg worked out that you're going to communicate to Greg and Greg will represent you. All right, so he'll see that you guys have a copy of it. Yes, thank you. Okay, so I, what is the decision about speaking at council? We just covered that, Lee, that people Diane will present for report. And there are several people on the committee who are planning on attending and will be part of being able to entertain questions or articulate to the council how we feel. George has suggested that ahead of the meeting, those who may want to get together and sort of coordinate the best use of that time that might be constructive. We did not vote to do that. So that's the summary of that. What's that? We should, it's, it makes the text. We should do it. We should, I'll just, I'll make the submission now. You want to propose that we just go ahead and make a motion, but it's on the, it's on the minutes. So I lose that we made the determination now as to who's going to work with Diane with the presentation because the rest of us can go and speak in public forum. Okay, so that motion, that's the motion. Is it seconded? Second. Second. Okay. So all in favor. Aye. Aye. It's hard to tell any of us, any nays. I was an aye. Yeah. I saw that. I'm an aye. I'm not a nay. The bites in your corner are too cold to walk as fast as everybody else's. So we can see it. Okay. All right. Looks like that passes. So shall we select a nominations on the floor for up to at least three people? I see at least comment should be everyone. I know that I can't make it on the 24th, but I think that the point that was made, I see it again, Robert. The point that was made was that if you go with a large body and everybody is given the latitude to expect to go in and speak as much as they want, forgetting that it's a council's meeting, we can ask that all eight or 16 or however many want to have more than their two minutes that we're done. We can't pursue them that of the council's time. So the recommendation was keep three, a small contingent that you delegate to be more than just the common set. But so I'd like to take nominations from the floor. I'd like to volunteer and nominate myself, but I'm happy not to be. Okay. Greg, I nominate Richard. So, okay. So we have Robert nominate, self-nominating Richard. Any other nominations I'd like to get at least three or four and then make sure it's okay with the people who've been nominated. Yes, Anne. I nominate Greg. Okay. So we've got Greg, Robert, Richard has nominations. Any other nominations before we confirm that those people want to? Okay. So we had three nominations. Richard, if they vote on you, would you vote? I would vote. I would think I would prefer to vote in public forum. With all due respect. I mean, I don't disagree with anything that Chris has put together. And I appreciate his initiative. Some awards were excluded from that until the last few days. This is something that I might have been, I did anticipate in correspondence with Barbara actually about four months ago. This dismantling of what one might happen. But I deplore the way in which it has been done and it has been done in a way that doesn't give anyone or what one the opportunity to discuss. That is, it's a waste of time. Yeah. We're having a representative on this committee because this committee has been talking to us. May I offer that there will be other opportunities for community engagement all the way through the process? A, B, as you well point out, notwithstanding the effort that was done by the people who presented map suggestions, that in no way has suddenly changed the map. It just hasn't. So I, if that were to go that way, I would agree with you that would be very frustrating. But your notes about why it's important to consider that are on record and considered by the council. One would hope, Rick, are you okay with being a representative? Yes. I saw your hand up. Yes? No. Actually, George had self-nominated. I was checking for it. Yeah, unless Richard wants to do it, I'd be happy to be the third person. Okay. I think it would be uncomfortable because I couldn't stop saying what I feel. And I'm not sure. A diversity of opinion would be that. That doesn't represent the committee, which I think we failed with the committee. I don't think I should speak as part of that. I see Lee's comment in the chat. It is, Lee is asking it to go as an alternate. I see that the alternates by definition are up to the council at the time. I would encourage you to be there. Hope that your two minutes can go more than two minutes. If need be, I'd like to think that they would entertain the comments that you would have. Jim, didn't you say you can't go? I did. My question is if you can't go, can I go as your alternate? Now I understand your question. I see your point. And so we have four nominations on the floor. We can either go with four and just take all four or we can parse it down to one of, or the three out of four, Robert, George, Lee. I'm trying to step out if that's fine with you. I'll step out and I'll have my two minutes at the beginning at the public forum. So it sounds like that's resolved then. Okay, so I, well, both of you spoke at the same time. In case you didn't hear Richard objected to an alternate going as a representative. So noted. So what we have is three people, is that fair? I mean, we have, I say the process has suggested George, Lee and Fred, notwithstanding the point that Richard has made as well, I think that's valuable to hear. That's three, are we good with that? Should Richard's objection be voted on and then proceed? I think that's important, but I don't want to skip over to how do other people feel about Lee going in and instead of me, she's acted as an alternate. And this is a meaning of part of the process that I speak. The purpose of an alternate is to step in when the representative can't be present. And I thought I heard Jim say that he couldn't go. And I've gone to all of the meetings. I attended all of the public forums. I've read every word of the memo. I've read all of the surveys and all of the comments. And I have definitely proven that I have kept up with this committee every step of the way. And if Jim can't be there, I am available and prepared to step in in my role as alternate. And so, Robert, would you turn that into a motion that you suggest if we vote on it, turn it into a motion we can vote on? I'm withdrawing the motion, but I just at least wanted Richard to be heard. I think that if Richard attends, he'll be heard. Okay, so I think in fairness to the question, how many people object to Lee attend in her role as alternate? Let's see, the science show of hands, I got one. I think the vote is Lee. Yes, do you have a question or a quote? A question, I'm not objecting to her being selected, but when we are nominating individuals, you are nominated an individual. You're not sort of saying that person and perhaps their alternate. However, I do agree with Lee that she's done an amazing job in preparation and no one's been more prepared for any of these meetings. So I'm perfectly comfortable with her stepping in for that point, but I do understand Richard's point also that when you are asking someone to represent, you are selecting that person. However, I'm not speaking against Lee at all. I have nothing but a lot of respect for him. So thank you for that. I would point out that in my, from the notes I've taken from this conversation, one of the bullet points was to clarify the role of alternates in the future. So this sort of thing, it does not happen. I would say- The MPAs were not asked to select an alternate. Actually they were, and our MP did pick alternates and surveyed a few others. If yours did not, that is not our MPAs. I mean, that was part of the process last time. I would agree with you, Richard. There was no mention of alternates and it kind of came out of the blue, but the people who endorsed voting for alternates were Mark, Karen, and Sarah, who were the originators of the resolution. So they endorsed the idea of alternates post that beginning, but they, I don't know, brought it to them. They said it was okay. And the MPAs- Where's mom, Sarah? What's that? City councillors, Karen Hall, Sarah. So the three councillors who created that resolution were okay with alternates, and that was sent to the MPAs. And if your MPA didn't want to do it that way, that's not on another MPAs problem, but did create the lack of clarity in the process is exactly why we're going to make sure to vote twice. It's recognized it should be clear. I might not know. This is not about the error or any of that, because we seem to be breaking rules left, right, or center. And this is just another one that I'm not comfortable with, but I think we've used some of my time to be honest. I understand. I've gone on record before saying that I'm equally frustrated with the lack of clarity that created a lot of room for all these slow questions. And the best we can do is perpetual improvement, which is next time we do it better. Can't go backwards, but I do respect what you're saying, but I'm trying real hard to stay within a process that gets us there. Anything else? Sounds like we have our speakers. Last thing on the agenda is to adjourn. Last opportunity, please. Anything else going on? I just want to know exactly where are we sending our emails to for our addendum, our own addendum. Do we know where that's going? Sure, send it to Megan Tuttle. Okay, I know, I know. Okay, okay, thank you. All right, go on, going twice, adjourned. Thank you. Very good job, Jim. I know it's hard, you just dropped into it. Thank you, Jim, trying to herd cats. Okay, that is the nature of redistricting that is politically charged, of course, if there's a lot of alignment and a lot of strong feelings in different directions. Okay, thank you all. Thank you, everybody, bye. Take care, thanks.