This question came up at the Ward 8 organizational meeting. Since the meeting was not videotaped, I asked the mapmaker to explain how the final map changed from the 8 ward map recommended by the Redistricting Committee and referred by Council to the Charter Change Committee.
Robert: Here is the history as best as I understand it:
In May i drew the map on the BTVvotes website and brought it to that last Redistricting Committee meeting. That was the 8 ward/ 16 councilor plan, and it got included as one of the 3 ward maps [8/16 plan] going to city council.
Then, sometime in the fall, maybe September, the 4 councilors from the NNE and the 4 from the ONE teamed up to get a 8-councilor majority, and they married George Gamache's 8/4/12 to the 8-ward map I drew. Council adopted it and referred it to CCC. That is the "Version 1" map. (pictured here)
Norm Blais started agitating about Henderson/Robinson going int W8 (Andy warned me about it in June and i drew a couple of crappy 8-ward maps that fortunately did not get adopted, one is the Version 2 map). even though i was not so sympathetic about the Henderson/Robinson folks going into W8, the problem of W6's polling place remained. in October, i occurred to me that i could swap the Redstone campus for as many blocks along Main St as necessary, and that became the Version 3 map. Karen Paul liked it a lot better. Norm remained opposed to any 8-ward.
But the CCC adopted Version 3 and referred that back to Council. most other council members did not like it.
On the last meeting before ballot questions were adopted, several council members collaborated to switch it back to V1 and they prevailed, much to Norm's and Karen's chagrin.
but there is this 3-week, 2-meeting public feedback period. this is when all of the gun nutz in orange came out of the woodwork and came to council. now Council cannot change what's going on the ballot UNLESS someone from the public requests, and *then* Council can vote to adopt the request from the public. *I* was the member from the public that asked Council to reconsider Version 3, because only with V3 could we say "82% of the city remains in the same ward *and* votes at the same polling place". that would not be true for Version 1 because Ward 6 would not be keeping Edmunds School.
Norm and Karen started working on councilors to switch back in return for grudging support for the 8/4/12.
At the very, very, last possible meeting to do this (late January, I think), Council voted to switch back to Version 3. Karen announced that she now supports the plan and Norm agreed to become totally incommunicado about it (it was already after his North Ave News column against it).
So that is how Version 3 ended up on the ballot at the last minute. Because of this last-minute thing, they changed the language about the East District boundary; but in the description of the Central District boundary, there was a reference to the East District boundary intersecting King Street (which it *does* in V1, but *not* in V3) which did not get changed. I caught that technical problem just before the Senate's second reading and it got patched up in the bill.
To folks wondering, the nature of this map is such that it serves the purpose of the existing 7 wards and the great majority of the city. 82% of the 18% that *do* end up in a different ward, 13% of the 18% is the new ward 8. Only 5% of the city are in one of the 7 wards and will find themselves in another of the 7 wards.
Even though the shape appears awful, it *does* deal with the main constitutional purpose of redistricting. We have an emerging demographic (that is bursting the seams of Wards 1, 2, 3, and 6), we are now affording representation to that demographic rather than slicing them up among other wards. Now if they *choose* not to vote on Town Meeting Day, that's their choice and the remaining 30% of Ward 8 will have even *more* political power to get one of themselves elected...
Robert Bristow-Johnson
I am sending this to people who have been hard pressed to explain the salamander. You have seen the AFTER ward map. Here is the BEFORE ward map that was created at the Redistricting Committee. Robert [Bristow-Johnson], can you tell us how and why the 8 ward map from the [redistricting] committee was changed?
 |
| VERSION 1 ward map recommended by Redistricting Committee
and referred to charter Change Committee, 9.23.13
|
In May i drew the map on the BTVvotes website and brought it to that last Redistricting Committee meeting. That was the 8 ward/ 16 councilor plan, and it got included as one of the 3 ward maps [8/16 plan] going to city council.
Then, sometime in the fall, maybe September, the 4 councilors from the NNE and the 4 from the ONE teamed up to get a 8-councilor majority, and they married George Gamache's 8/4/12 to the 8-ward map I drew. Council adopted it and referred it to CCC. That is the "Version 1" map. (pictured here)
But the CCC adopted Version 3 and referred that back to Council. most other council members did not like it.
On the last meeting before ballot questions were adopted, several council members collaborated to switch it back to V1 and they prevailed, much to Norm's and Karen's chagrin.
but there is this 3-week, 2-meeting public feedback period. this is when all of the gun nutz in orange came out of the woodwork and came to council. now Council cannot change what's going on the ballot UNLESS someone from the public requests, and *then* Council can vote to adopt the request from the public. *I* was the member from the public that asked Council to reconsider Version 3, because only with V3 could we say "82% of the city remains in the same ward *and* votes at the same polling place". that would not be true for Version 1 because Ward 6 would not be keeping Edmunds School.
Norm and Karen started working on councilors to switch back in return for grudging support for the 8/4/12.
At the very, very, last possible meeting to do this (late January, I think), Council voted to switch back to Version 3. Karen announced that she now supports the plan and Norm agreed to become totally incommunicado about it (it was already after his North Ave News column against it).
 |
| VERSION 3 ward map |
To folks wondering, the nature of this map is such that it serves the purpose of the existing 7 wards and the great majority of the city. 82% of the 18% that *do* end up in a different ward, 13% of the 18% is the new ward 8. Only 5% of the city are in one of the 7 wards and will find themselves in another of the 7 wards.
Even though the shape appears awful, it *does* deal with the main constitutional purpose of redistricting. We have an emerging demographic (that is bursting the seams of Wards 1, 2, 3, and 6), we are now affording representation to that demographic rather than slicing them up among other wards. Now if they *choose* not to vote on Town Meeting Day, that's their choice and the remaining 30% of Ward 8 will have even *more* political power to get one of themselves elected...
Robert Bristow-Johnson
 |
| Could it happen in Burlington? |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.