Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

>> GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE CALLED BOARD MEETING OF

[1. Notice and Return]

[00:00:04]

DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

WE WILL DISPENSE WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND A SALUTE TO THE TEXAS FLAG, AS WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

THE FOLLOWING TRUSTEES ARE EITHER PHYSICALLY PRESENT OR PARTICIPATING SIMULTANEOUSLY BY ZOOM CONFERENCE.

A QUORUM OF THE BOARD IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT AT THIS LOCATION.

DISTRICT 1, EDWIN FLORES, DISTRICT 2, DUSTIN MARSHALL, DISTRICT 3, DAN MICCICHE, DISTRICT 4, KARLA GARCIA, DISTRICT 5, MAXIE JOHNSON, DISTRICT 6, JOYCE FOREMAN, DISTRICT 7, BEN MACKEY, DISTRICT 8, JOE CARRION, AND DISTRICT 9, JUSTIN HENRY.

OUR SUPERINTENDENT SCHOOLS, MICHAEL HINOJOSA JOINS US.

[NOISE] THIS MEETING WILL BE AVAILABLE SIMULTANEOUSLY IN SPANISH ON SOCIAL MEDIA THROUGH DALLAS ISD, AND ESPANOL ON FACEBOOK, AND THROUGH THE DISTRICT'S WEBSITE. TRUSTEE CARRION.

>> [SPANISH] AND FACEBOOK [SPANISH].

>> THANK YOU. THIS MEETING IS AROUND OUR REDISTRICTING, SO WE HAVE OUR REDISTRICTING TEAM HERE.

[4. Discussion Items]

WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN WITH ITEM 4A, PRESENTATION OF THE INITIAL REDISTRICTING MAPS AND COMMUNITY FEEDBACK.

IF I CAN ASK OUR TEAM, I KNOW WE'RE GETTING STARTED A LITTLE BIT LATE, WE HAD SOME HICCUPS TO GET HERE.

BUT IF WE CAN BE BRIEF WITH THE PRESENTATION, SO WE CAN HAVE MORE TIME FOR TRUSTEE QUESTIONS, BECAUSE I KNOW A COUPLE OF OUR TRUSTEES HAVE OTHER ENGAGEMENTS LATER THIS EVENING AND MAY HAVE TO LEAVE.

I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU FOR 4A.

>> WILL DO. THANK YOU.

PRESIDENT MACKEY, DR. HINOJOSA, TRUSTEES THAT ARE HERE, THAT ARE PRESENT AND VIRTUALLY. I WANT TO THANK YOU.

I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH FIRST TO A REMINDER OF WHERE WE ARE.

I KNOW Y'ALL HAVE HAD THE PRESENTATION AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED MAP OPTIONS.

AGAIN, WHAT WE BRING TO YOU TODAY ARE THREE PLAN OPTIONS.

I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THESE ARE NOT ANY TYPE OF FINAL PLAN OR RECOMMENDED PLANS.

RATHER, THEY ARE PLAN OPTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD'S PROCESS THAT WAS TO PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH SOME STARTING POINTS.

IT'S FROM THIS STARTING POINT THAT OUR GOAL, HOPEFULLY FOR OUR TEAM, IS TO GET FEEDBACK FROM Y'ALL AND DIRECTION ON WHETHER THERE IS ONE MAP IN THESE THREE THAT WE CAN START THE DISCUSSION ON.

BECAUSE AS YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE PRESENTATION MATERIALS, WE ARE LOOKING FOR CONTINUED FEEDBACK AND INPUT, BOTH FROM OUR COMMUNITIES AND FROM OUR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT TRUSTEES AS WE MOVE FORWARD TOWARDS A PLAN FROM THE REDISTRICTING TEAM FOR NOVEMBER, AND FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION IN NOVEMBER.

AGAIN, THESE ARE OPTIONS FROM WHICH WE CAN HOPEFULLY START FROM.

IMPORTANTLY, ALL THE PLANS CONSIDERED WERE CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF THE CRITERIA THAT THE BOARD HAS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED.

THAT IS WHY IN YOUR PRESENTATION MATERIALS WE WANT TO BRING REMINDERS AS TO WHAT THAT CRITERIA IS.

ADDITIONALLY, WHAT WE TRIED TO STRIVE IN TERMS OF DISTINGUISHING THE DIFFERENT PLAN OPTIONS IS TO HIGHLIGHT THOSE PARTICULAR CRITERIA THAT WERE MORE FOCUSED ON IN EACH OF THOSE PLANS.

IF A BOX WAS NOT CHECKED, I DO NOT WANT Y'ALL TO THINK THAT THAT BOX INDICATES THAT THAT CRITERIA WASN'T CONSIDERED, THAT'S NOT THE INTENT.

RATHER THAT WHEN YOU SEE A BOX THAT WAS CHECKED NEXT TO A PARTICULAR PLAN, THAT WAS MEANT TO SHOW THAT THE CRITERIA THAT IS CHECKED WAS MORE FOCUSED IN THAT PARTICULAR PLAN.

IMPORTANTLY, I THINK WHAT YOU SEE IS AN OVERVIEW IN TERMS OF PLAN 1 ITSELF, THAT IS TRULY A NUMBERS DRIVEN PLAN, AND I'LL SPEAK HERE AND ABOUT A FEW MINUTES ABOUT THE MORE DETAILS OF THAT PLAN.

BUT IT'S A NUMBERS DRIVEN PLAN, WHEREAS PLAN 2 OR 3, AGAIN, ARE LOOKING INTO THE CRITERIA AS WELL AS PLAN 1, BUT WITH TWO AND THREE, WE ARE ALSO CONSIDERING SOME OF THE FEEDBACK, OR MR. GARDENER'S CONSIDERING SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED TO DATE.

AGAIN, FEEDBACK AND INPUT ARE GOING TO BE PART OF THIS CONTINUED PROCESS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS MONTH AND WE MOVE FORWARD INTO NOVEMBER.

I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED AND THE INPUT THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED TODAY.

WE'VE HAD APPROXIMATELY 12 COMMUNITY MEETINGS WITH OUR RESPECTIVE TRUSTEES.

FOCUS OF THOSE MEETINGS PRIMARILY WERE TO INFORM YOUR COMMUNITIES ABOUT THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS, ABOUT THE PLAN AND THE CRITERIA THAT THE BOARD IS ADOPTED, AS WELL AS TO SHARE WITH THEM THE DATA AND POPULATION ANALYSIS THAT MR. GARDENER HAS PUT TOGETHER.

I THINK THOSE WERE REALLY FRUITFUL MEETINGS, AT LEAST IN THE ONES THAT I ATTEND.

ALL MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM ATTENDED THOSE VIRTUAL MEETINGS IN SOME CAPACITY.

THE QUESTIONS THEMSELVES REALLY CENTERED ON THE PROCESS AND ON THE CRITERIA, AS WELL AS A LITTLE BIT ON THE CHANGE ANALYSIS IN SOME IN WHICH I ATTENDED.

[00:05:06]

BUT OVERALL, IT WAS REALLY ABOUT EDUCATING OUR COMMUNITIES AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO STUDY AND ASSESS ANY FUTURE MAP OR MAPS THAT WILL BECOMING FROM THE BOARD AS PART OF THIS PROCESS.

WE DID RECEIVE SOME INPUT IN THE SENSE OF THE CRITERIA AND ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.

THERE WAS SOME TALK IN TERMS OF ATTENDANCE ZONES, THERE WERE SOME TALK ABOUT STUDENT POPULATION BALANCES, MEANING, CAN WE EQUALIZE THE STUDENT POPULATION AMONGST THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS? IN ADDITION, IN THAT SAME SPIRIT, IS THERE A WAY TO BALANCE THE NUMBER OF SCHOOLS THAT EACH SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT TRUSTEE HAS, SO THAT THERE'S A MORE EQUAL BALANCE? AGAIN, THOSE THINGS ARE VERY IMPORTANT, I THINK TO THE COMMUNITY, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTFUL ON REDISTRICTING, THEY'RE NOT AS DIRECTLY AS IMPACTFUL AS THE CRITERIA THAT THIS BOARD HAS CHOSEN TO ADOPT AS PART OF THE PROCESS.

TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW, WITH EACH PLAN WE HAVE TRIED TO PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN OF THE TOTAL POPULATION, OUR VOTING AGE POPULATION, AS WELL AS THE CURRENT CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION.

I DO WANT TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT CVAP, CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION.

THE CHANGE ANALYSIS THAT YOU RECEIVE WITH EACH SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT WITHIN EACH PLAN, PROVIDES YOU THE CHANGE ANALYSIS AS TO TOTAL POPULATION AS WELL AS TO VOTING AGE POPULATION.

YOU WILL NOTE AND HAVE NOTED PROBABLY THAT THERE IS NOT A CHANGE OR ANALYSIS AS IT RELATES TO CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION.

THE REASON, THAT IS THE CASE IS, BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A BENCHMARK, MEANING WE DO NOT HAVE 2010 CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION DATA.

THE TEAM DUG IN TO FIND IF THERE WAS CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION THAT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS BACK IN 2010.

THE WAY WE DID THAT IS WE LOOKED FORWARD IN THE DOJ SUBMISSION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS TIME AROUND, BUT DID LAST TIME AROUND, IS THAT THE DISTRICT HAD TO SUBMIT FOR PRE-CLEARANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

IF CVAP WAS CONSIDERED, THE LIKELY SOURCE OF THAT WOULD BE THAT SUBMISSION.

WHEN WE PULLED THAT SUBMISSION AND LOOKED AT IT, THERE WAS NO CVAP INFORMATION.

AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE'VE REALLY ONLY HAVE HALF THE PICTURE ON CVAP, WE HAVE THE PICTURE THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW AS BASED ON 2020 NUMBERS.

AGAIN, I THINK MR. GARDENER CAN ALSO SPEAK TO THIS.

BUT THAT CVAP INFORMATION IS NOT CENSUS DATA BASED INFORMATION, BECAUSE CITIZENSHIP IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS ASKED AS PART OF THE CENSUS.

RATHER, IT IS DATA INFORMATION THAT IS GATHERED FROM THE AMERICAN SERVE, AND I THINK I HAVE, WHAT'S THE TITLE?

>> IT'S AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY.

>> AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY.

>> IT DOES COME FROM THE CENSUS BUREAU TO BE [OVERLAPPING].

>> YEAH.

>> THANK YOU. IT DOES COME FROM THE CENSUS BUREAU.

THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY IS DONE IN FIVE-YEAR SURVEY INCREMENTS.

IT IS A PRODUCT OF THE CENSUS BUREAU THAT'S RELEASED.

I THINK THE CVAP THAT'S USED FOR THIS YEAR IS THE 15-19 SURVEY.

IT ONLY COMES DOWN TO A BLOCK GROUP GEOGRAPHY.

IT HAD TO USE THE 2010 BLOCK GROUPS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PRODUCE IT FOR 2020.

THEN THOSE BLOCK GROUPS WERE DISAGGREGATED TO 2010 BLOCKS AND THEN REAGGREGATED TO 2020 BLOCKS IN ORDER TO BE USED FOR 2020 USAGE IN IT'S STANDARD PRACTICE.

>> ALL THAT TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AS A CONSISTENT OR CONGRUENT PIECE OF INFORMATION AS WHAT WE HAVE WITH THE CENSUS BASED DATA ON VOTING AGE POPULATION, AND TOTAL POPULATION.

AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE A BENCHMARK, WE DO NOT HAVE A 2010.

NOW I CAN TELL THE BOARD, IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT IT WANTS TO DELVE INTO, WE CERTAINLY HAVE A MEANS TO ACCESS AND COMPILE THE BENCHMARK INFORMATION FROM 2010 AND BASICALLY CREATE IT TIME.

WE DO HAVE THAT OPTION TO DO THAT.

WE CAN ALSO CONTINUE TO DIG FURTHER TO SEE IF THERE WAS AT ANY POINT SOME DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO SEE THAT BACK IN 2010, BUT BASED ON THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE'VE RECEIVED, WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THAT.

AGAIN, WE STILL HAVE THE CVAP FOR 2020.

GOING INTO THE ACTUAL POWERPOINT ITSELF, I'D LIKE TO BEGIN WITH SLIDE 4.

[00:10:03]

JUST TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT, PRACTICALLY GIVING THIS 60,000 MILE VIEWPOINT HERE, WE'RE STARTING AT GROUND ZERO BECAUSE OF SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS 7 AND 5 AND THE DEVIATION THAT'S BEEN CREATED BETWEEN THOSE TWO DISTRICTS.

SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS 7 IS THE LOWEST IN POPULATION, APPROXIMATELY BY ABOUT 17,000 SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT 5 IS OVERPOPULATED BY APPROXIMATELY 24,000.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT WENT INTO THIS IS THE FACT THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH A SECOND MOST POPULOUS DISTRICT IN SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT 2 BY ABOUT 10,000.

THEN WE ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT 8 IS OUR 2ND LOWEST POPULATED DISTRICT.

IN TERMS OF NUMBERS, THAT'S REALLY WHAT IS DRIVING CERTAINLY ALL THE MAPS.

BUT AGAIN, LET'S GO AHEAD AND START WITH PLAN 1.

I'D LIKE TO GO TO SLIDE 6 IF THAT WOULD BE TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THAT PLAN.

PLAN 1 IS NOT THAT MUCH DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOUR CURRENT PLAN IS IN PLACE.

THIS PLAN, AGAIN, ALL CRITERIA HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS PLAN, WITH THE FOCUS BEING TO ACHIEVE BALANCE IN THE POPULATION WITH AS LEAST AMOUNT OF CHANGES WITH REGARD TO THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES, IF YOU RECALL, IS PART OF THE CRITERIA.

ONE OF THE CRITERIA WAS, CHANGES TRYING TO PRESERVE CURRENT SINGLE MEMBER BOUNDARIES TO THE FULLEST EXTENT AS POSSIBLE OR TO THE EXTENT AS PRACTICABLE.

THIS PARTICULAR PLAN, WHAT WE END UP DOING IS WE REDUCE THE DEVIATION TO 8.7.

IN DOING SO AND MAKING A HANDFUL OF CHANGES IN TERMS OF BOUNDARIES, I WANT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY A HANDFUL OF CHANGES TO THE BOUNDARIES, PERHAPS 4-5.

UNDER THIS PLAN, YOU HAVE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, 7 BECOMING OUR LARGEST SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT BY POPULATION, WITH SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT 6 BEING THE SMALLEST BY POPULATION.

OF THE THREE PLANS, IT IS THE MOST COMPACT AND CONTIGUOUS OF THE THREE WHEN COMPARED TO THE OTHER TWO.

SIGNIFICANTLY SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT 3, 4, AND 9 ARE NOT IMPACTED.

IN THAT SENSE, IT SPEAKS TO THE CRITERIA OF SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES BEING PRESERVED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

IT ALSO MAINTAINS, IN FACT, ALL OF THEM DO MAINTAIN INCUMBENT CONSTITUENCY RELATIONS, IN THAT ALL SITTING TRUSTEES CONTINUE TO REMAIN IN THEIR DISTRICTS.

ADDITIONALLY, THIS PLAN TRIES TO LIMIT ANY ADDITIONAL SPLITTING OF VOTING PRECINCTS.

UNDER YOUR CURRENT PLAN THAT WAS PASSED BACK IN 2010, THERE WAS A SPLITTING OF DISTRICTS.

WE COUNTED APPROXIMATELY 20 THAT CURRENTLY EXIST RIGHT NOW.

UNDER THIS PLAN, THERE IS MAYBE ONE MORE SPLITTING OF A PRECINCT THAT OCCURS IN THIS PARTICULAR PLAN.

PLANS 2 AND 3 CONTAIN MORE IN TERMS OF SPLITTING PRECINCTS.

WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF OUR MINORITY POPULATIONS, UNDER THIS PLAN, SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS THAT HAVE MAINTAINED TRADITIONALLY MAJORITY-MINORITY POPULATIONS IN BOTH TOTAL POPULATION AS WELL AS VOTING AGE POPULATION BASED ON THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES.

THOSE MAJORITY-MINORITY POPULATIONS IN THOSE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WHICH THERE ARE FOUR, CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN MAJORITY-MINORITY POPULATIONS, MEANING THOSE MAJORITY-MINORITY POPULATIONS CONTINUE TO BE OVER 50 PERCENT UNDER PLAN 1.

WITH THAT, I THINK MR. GARDENER CAN SPEAK TO A COUPLE OF THINGS OR CHANGES THAT WERE MADE IN THAT PARTICULAR PLAN 1.

>> CAN I JUST INTERRUPT FOR A LITTLE BIT? I KNOW WE NEED TO SPEED THIS UP.

I KNOW WE HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF SLIDES ON INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS.

I WOULD LIKE US TO SKIP ALL OF THE SLIDES ON INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT IMPACTS AT THIS TIME AND GO THROUGH PLAN 1, PLAN 2, AND PLAN 3 AS AN OVERVIEW.

THEN OF COURSE WE CAN DIG INTO AS WE GET TO TRUSTEE QUESTIONS.

>> OKAY.

>> WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF TIME SOON BECAUSE TWO OF US HAVE TO LEAVE AND IT'S GOING TO BREAK QUORUM AND THE MEETING'S GOING TO END.

I THINK IT'S MORE IMPORTANT FOR YOU ALL TO HEAR US TALK THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

>> OKAY.

>> WELL, I'LL JUST GO REAL QUICK TO PLAN 1, JUST TO MY MINDSET ON PLAN 1 AND THEN I'LL DO THE SAME THING ON THE OTHERS BECAUSE PLAN 1 WAS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD FOR ME.

IT WAS A STARTING SPOT, I KNEW WE HAD TO TAKE OVER 20,000 PERSONS IN POPULATION OUT OF DISTRICT 5.

THE LOGICAL SPOT WHICH IS TO MOVE THE DISTRICT 7, THE MOST DENSE AREA OF DISTRICT 5 WHERE WE CAN CAPTURE THE MOST POPULATION WAS ON THAT WEST DALLAS SECTION.

IT WAS A REAL LOGICAL MOVE.

[00:15:01]

IT TOOK CARE OF ALMOST EVERYTHING THERE.

THEN IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TWEAKING.

WE HAD TO MOVE A LITTLE BIT FROM 5-6 AND TO GET NUMBERS OF SIX UP AND THEN UP IN ONE, WE USED ONE TO RELIEVE TWO.

WE BEEN I GUESS MOUSE MY POCKET.

THEN A LITTLE BIT OF EIGHT, WE MOVED SOME EIGHT INTO ONE TO PICK UP FOR SOME OF THAT POPULATION. THAT'S ONE.

>> [BACKGROUND] MOVING ON. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING ON TO PLAN 2.

WITH REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR PLAN, WE'RE LOOKING AT A DEVIATION THAT REDUCES DOWN UNDER THE 10 PERCENT TO 9.7.

AGAIN, STRIVING FOR AS NEAR AS EQUAL POPULATION AS PRACTICABLE.

UNDER THIS PLAN, SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT 7 CONTINUES TO BE THE SMALLEST PLAN WITH SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT 9 BECOMING THE LARGEST BY POPULATION.

THIS PARTICULAR PLAN, UNLIKE PLAN 1, DOES MAKE MORE INTERNAL BOUNDARY CHANGES.

AGAIN, NOT AS MUCH AS WE PROBABLY COULD, BUT CERTAINLY A HANDFUL MORE SUCH THAT WE'RE STILL TRYING TO BE MINDFUL OF THE CRITERIA TO PRESERVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE CURRENT BOUNDARY LINES.

THE CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO MAJORITY-MINORITY VOTING POPULATIONS.

THERE IS A CHANGE HERE IN REGARDS TO THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS.

WHEREAS BEFORE, THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY FOUR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS IN PLAN 1 THAT CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN MAJORITY-MINORITY POPULATIONS THAT HAVE TRADITIONALLY EXISTED IN THEIR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS.

UNDER THIS PLAN, ONLY THREE OF THOSE CONTINUED TO MAINTAIN MAJORITY-MINORITY POPULATIONS.

ONE OF THEM, WHICH IS SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT 6, COMES JUST BELOW 50 PERCENT, SO IT DOES DROP A BIT TO ABOUT 46 PERCENT, MAKING THAT MORE OF A PLURALITY POPULATION DISTRICT UNDER PLAN 2.

AGAIN, UNDER PLAN 2 WE STRIVE TO MAINTAIN INCUMBENT AND CONSTITUENCY RELATIONSHIPS, MAKING SURE THAT SITTING TRUSTEES CONTINUE TO REMAIN IN THEIR DISTRICTS.

THAT IS ACHIEVED UNDER THE BOUNDARY LINES UNDER PLAN 2.

HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF SPLIT VOTING PRECINCTS UNDER PLAN 2 UNLIKE PLAN 1.

WITH REGARD TO ANY OTHER SPECIFIC CHANGES THAT MR. GARDENER WOULD LIKE TO NOTE, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM RIGHT NOW.

>> THANKS, LAURA. IN PLAN NUMBER 2, IT BECAME APPARENT THAT MY WEST DALLAS AREA, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WAS GOING TO BE MY CONCENTRATION.

PLAN 2 WHAT YOU'LL FIND IS THAT I MOVED THE LARGEST DENSITY PART OF WESTERN DALLAS INTO DISTRICT 7 AND JUST TO GIVE YOU THE PLAN 3, I WENT THE OPPOSITE WAY AND TOOK A SIMILAR SECTION UP TO DISTRICT 8.

I WAS MOVING THAT WEST DALLAS SECTIONS AROUND, THEN AND I DUG A LITTLE MORE INTO.

I'M TRYING TO BE MINDFUL OF THE CURRENT PERCENT OF MINORITY POPULATIONS AND THEY WERE HISTORICALLY BEEN ABLE TO ELECT A TRUSTEE OR CANDIDATE OF CHOICE.

THEN I BEGAN TO DIG A LITTLE BIT IN.

I WENT SOUTH OF 30 ON BOTH PLANS 2 ONSET FOR DISTRICT 8 TO PICK UP AND RELIEVE SOME OF THAT FOOT THAT WAS OUT THERE.

WITH DOING SOME OF THAT, WE GAVE UP ENOUGH IN FIVE THAT I WAS ABLE TO MOVE FIVE IN SOME OTHER DIRECTIONS AND THEN MOVE PART OF NINE INTO FIVE AS WELL.

THERE WERE A LOT MORE MOVING PIECES.

THE AREA BETWEEN 1, 2, AND 8 AT THE NORTH, THAT WAS NOT CHANGED IN PLAN 2 AND PLAN 3 PICKED UP A LITTLE BIT IN NINE THAT WAS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 30. I WAS TRYING TO BE QUICKER.

>> THANK YOU. IT IS APPRECIATED.

>> VERY BRIEFLY, ON PLAN THREE, JUST THE OVERVIEW.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN SEE FROM THE CHART THAT THE DEVIATION IN THIS PLANE IS REDUCED TO 8.4 PERCENT.

S AND D 7 CONTINUES TO BE THE SMALLEST.

THEN SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT TWO BECOMES THE LARGEST BY THE SLIGHTEST OF MARGINS OVER SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ONE AND EIGHT.

THERE ARE MORE BOUNDARY CHANGES IN THIS PLAN AS COMPARED TO PLAN ONE.

THAT IS SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND CONSIDERING THE BORDER DOTTED CRITERIA TO PRESERVE THE CURRENT BOUNDARY LINES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

RELEVANT TO POINT OUT, BUT CERTAINLY NOT VIOLATIVE OF THAT PRINCIPLE.

THEN FINALLY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD BE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS SIX, PLAN THREE MAINTAINS A MAJORITY MINORITY VOTING POPULATION IN THOSE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS THAT CURRENTLY HAVE SUCH MAJORITIES.

THERE ARE SOME SPLIT PRECINCTS HERE, AND MR. GARDENER CAN CERTAINLY SPEAK TO ANY OF THE OTHER CHANGES.

>> THANKS, WESLEY. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IN PLAN THREE,

[00:20:01]

I MOVE SOME OF THE DENSITY OF WEST DALLAS INTO DISTRICT DATE.

I COULDN'T MOVE AS MUCH BECAUSE I STILL NEED TO GET SO MUCH POPULATION INTO DISTRICT SEVEN.

DISTRICT SEVEN NEEDED TO ADD 20 THOUSAND PERSONS, SO IT'S NOT QUITE AS CLEAN AS DISTRICT TWO WAS WITH THAT AS PLAN TWO WAS THAT THAT WAS THE IDEA.

I WAS ABLE TO LOOK AT A LITTLE SOUTHERN PART, A LITTLE PIECE AND ANOTHER PIECE OF FIVE TO GO INTO SEVEN.

THE SIMILAR MOVES BETWEEN EIGHT AND NINE WERE MADE.

I PICKED UP A LITTLE BIT OF MORE OF NINE INTO THREE IN THIS PLAN.

S3 GOT LITTLE BIT LARGER, A LITTLE PIECE OF TWO.

I MOVED AND GRABBED A LITTLE IN THE NORTH PART OF THREE AS WELL.

BETWEEN ONE AND EIGHT AT THE TOP, I SHIFTED A LITTLE BIT JUST TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD DO WITH MY NUMBERS.

THAT WAS ALSO MOVED.

MIGHT NOTE THAT THE SECTION BETWEEN ONE AND TWO THAT WAS CHANGED, THAT WAS THE SAME IN ALL THREE PLANS.

JUST TO BE CLEAR. THAT WAS IT.

>> THANK YOU ROCKY. I THINK WE'LL JUST JUMP NOW TO SLIDE 74, JUST TOWARDS THE END.

IN TERMS OF NEXT STEPS, TRUSTEES, YOU ALSO RECEIVED, I BELIEVE TODAY A SECOND POWERPOINT WITH REGARD TO TIMELINES AND UPCOMING TOWN HALL MEETINGS.

SLIDE 74 WORKS WITH THAT PARTICULAR POWERPOINT AND REALLY RESTATES A LOT OF THE NEXT STEP DATES.

ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE WERE PREPARING FOR TODAY'S MEETING AND GIVING THE BIRD'S EYE VIEW IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS AND WHAT WE HAVE LEFT IN THE TIME IN WHICH WE HAVE TO WORK WITH.

WE WERE LOOKING AT EXTENDING A WINDOW FOR TRUSTEES.

WE ARE AWARE THAT TRUSTEES, SOME TRUSTEES ARE WORKING ON THEIR OWN MAPS, WHICH WE APPRECIATE.

TO THAT END, WE ARE ALSO CONSIDERING GIVING MORE TIME TO THE PUBLIC FOR FURTHER FEEDBACK AND INPUT AS WE PROCEED DOWN TO ONE MAP FROM THE REDISTRICTING TEAM.

THOSE TIMELINES ARE STATED BOTH ON SLIDES 74, AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL POWERPOINT AND MATERIALS THAT YOU ALL RECEIVED FOR TODAY IN TERMS OF TIME.

THE IDEA AS WE WERE GETTING PREPARED IN REALIZING THAT THE EARLY DATE FOR THE NOVEMBER CALLED MEETING FALLS EXTREMELY EARLY IN TERMS OF THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS.

WHILE WE ARE ON A FAST TRACK, WE ALSO WANT TO BALANCE THAT WITH THE NEED FOR YOU AS TRUSTEES AS WELL AS FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT TIME FRAME OR HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT THE MAPS AND PROVIDE PUBLIC INPUT FOR THAT PURPOSE.

GRATEFULLY, WE ARE LOOKING AT HOPEFULLY A NOVEMBER SPECIAL CALLED MEETING DATE SLIDE 74 HAS IT AS NOVEMBER 11TH.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING AND SPEAKING WITH ADMINISTRATION IS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT NOVEMBER 16TH FOR PURPOSES OF A COG MEETING DATE ON ANY ONE PLAN? ANY THOUGHTS CERTAINLY AS TO WHAT TIMELINES ARE COMING UP AS REFLECTED IN THE MATERIALS YOU HAVE RECEIVED AS WELL AS ON SLIDE 74, WE WELCOME THAT DISCUSSION AND THOSE COMMENTS IN TERMS OF ANY UPCOMING DEADLINES.

WITH THAT, I THINK WE ARE DONE. PRESIDENT MACKEY.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.

OKAY TRUSTEES, YOU'VE SEEN THESE MAPS AND YOU'VE HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS WITH YOUR CONSTITUENTS.

NOW IS THE TIME FOR DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, ET CETERA.

TRUSTEES, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR.

WE'LL START WITH TRUSTEE CARION AND FOLLOWED BY TRUSTEE JOHNSON.

>> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.

I GUESS I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

I WANT TO REFERENCE THE SEPTEMBER 9TH PRESENTATION THAT YOU ALL GAVE TO US THEN AND TALK ABOUT DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE IN DALLAS ISD FROM 2010 TO 2020.

IN THAT TIME SPAN, WE HAD A GROWTH OF 4,458 AFRICAN-AMERICANS OF VOTING AGE.

IS THAT RIGHT? WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

>> TRUSTEE CARION I'M BRINGING UP THAT POWERPOINT FROM SEPTEMBER 9TH.

I'M ASSUMING ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE 2010 TO 2020 CHANGE ANALYSIS?

>> EXACTLY.

>> I THINK THAT'S SLIDE NUMBER FOUR? RIGHT.

>> YEAH THAT'S RIGHT. [INAUDIBLE]

>> YES, SIR. I'M ON THE SAME PAGE AS YOU.

>> WE HAD A CHANGE.

WE HAD AN INCREASE OF 4,458 AFRICAN-AMERICANS OF VOTING AGE. IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES SIR.

>> OKAY. THEN WE HAD AN INCREASE OF 9,258 ASIAN-AMERICANS OF VOTING AGE. IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES SIR.

>> WE HAD AN INCREASE OF 20,109 ANGLOS OF VOTING AGE, IS THAT RIGHT?

[00:25:06]

>> YES, SIR.

>> WE GET AN INCREASE OF 53,665 HISPANICS OF VOTING AGE. IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S WHAT THE CHART SAYS, YES SIR.

>> LET ME SEE HERE.

THAT MEANS HISPANIC GROWTH BY VOTING AGE WAS 2.5 TIMES THAT OF ANGLOS, ROUGHLY?

>> ROUGHLY, YEAH.

>> HISPANIC GROWTH WAS ABOUT FIVE TIMES THAT OF ASIAN-AMERICANS, ROUGHLY.

HISPANIC GROWTH WAS 12 TIMES THAT OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN GROWTH IN THAT TIME SPAN? CORRECT?

>> YES, ROUGHLY.

MATHEMATICAL WISE I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU IN TERMS. IT WAS A BIG INCREASE.

>> WHAT I'M CONFUSED BY AN ALL THREE OF THESE PLANS IS WHY NONE OF THESE PLANS RESPECT THE GROWTH OF THE LATINO VOTERS AND DALLAS ISD.

LET'S LOOK JUST AT DISTRICT A SPECIFICALLY.

PLAN ONE. YOU STORE A HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT.

PLAN ONE HAS A LATINO CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION.

IN PLAN ONE, LATINO CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION OF 34 PERCENT.

IS THAT RIGHT ROUGHLY? SOMEWHERE IN THERE. RIGHT. THAT DOES NOT MAKE A HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT.

PLAN TWO, DISTRICT EIGHT HAS A LATINO CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION OF 31 PERCENT.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE A LATINO OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT.

PLAN THREE, DISTRICT EIGHT HAS A LATINO CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION OF 34 PERCENT.

AGAIN, NOT AN LATINO OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT.

THIS IS PRIME APHASIA RETROGRESSION.

I GUESS WHAT I WANT TO SEE IN MY EXPECTATION IS THAT ANY MATH PROVIDED TO US, EVEN IN DRAFT FORM, SHOULD BE ABLE TO STAND ON THEIR LEGS LEGALLY.

THIS ISN'T IT. I CAN SAY THE SAME THING FOR I WON'T SPEAK FOR TRUSTEE GARCIA, BUT THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING IN DISTRICT FOUR.

ELIMINATING TWO OF THE THREE HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY SEATS WHEN THE GROWTH IN THE LAST DECADE HAS BEEN LATINO IS AGAIN ON IT'S FACE RETROGRESSION.

I EXPECT ANY MAP MOVING FORWARD TO COUNT FOR THAT.

I HAVE NO QUESTION.

BUT I THINK THAT'S IT NEEDS TO BE VERY GOOD.

THAT'S MY PRIMARY FEEDBACK TO YOU AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

>> THANK YOU TRUSTEE CARION.

I'M GOING TO ASK MR. GARDENER IF THERE'S ANYTHING HE'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT, IF ANYTHING.

>> NOT THIS TIME. THERE WAS NOT A QUESTION THERE, BUT I CERTAINLY HEAR YOUR CONCERN AND CERTAINLY THESE MAPS WERE MEANT TO BE STARTING POINTS AND WE'LL SO WE ADDRESSED AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

>> I THINK THAT JUST DIDN'T CONSIDER.

I WANT TO THANK YOU TRUSTEE CARION FOR THAT INPUT.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE NOTED.

AGAIN, THE BENCHMARK OF WHAT WE CAN DO COMPARISONS ON FOR THE CONCERN OF RETROGRESSION THAT'S HIGH ON OUR MONITOR WITH RESPECT TO ALL MINORITY POPULATIONS.

WE DO UNDERSTAND THE INCREASE IN HISPANICS IN THE DISTRICT ITSELF.

ONE OF THE CHALLENGES AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU ALL IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT SEE VAB FROM 2010.

IN ORDER TO BASICALLY BE HAVING A BENCHMARK BY WHICH WE CAN ASSESS THE CHANGE DATA OR THE CHANGE ANALYSIS FOR THAT.

>> THANK YOU, JESSIE CARREON.

TRUSTEE JOHNSON, FOLLOWED BY TRUSTEE MARSHALL FOLLOWED BY TRUSTEE FOREMAN.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ASK BECAUSE I'VE TRIED TO REACH OUT TO YOU GUYS.

MR. ROCA I'VE TEXTED YOU, MR. CARLOS, AND I'VE NOT GOTTEN AN ANSWER OR A RESPONSE.

WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO CONTACT YOU GUYS WHEN YOU GIVE ME A NUMBER, YOU DON'T ANSWER.

DO I NEED TO GO TO THE BOARD PRESIDENT? WHO DO I NEED TO CONTACT TO TRY TO GET AN ANSWER TO A SIMPLE QUESTION?

>> WELL, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT I WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITHOUT A LAWYER PRESENT.

>> EVEN VIA TEXT?

>> WELL, I WOULD SEEM THAT WOULD BE THE SAME. THAT WOULD BE A CONVERSATION.

[00:30:02]

>> WELL, I CONTACTED BOTH, SO I DON'T KNOW.

SO WHAT'S THE RULE SO WE ARE NOW GOING FORWARD.

WHEN I SPEAK, MR. ROCA, DO I NEED TO SPEAK WITH YOU AT THE SAME TIME? DO I NEED THE KILO BOTH OF YOU GUYS ON THE SAME TEXT? CAN I GET A CALLBACK THE NEXT TIME I TRY TO REACH OUT TO YOU?

>> CERTAINLY.

>> IT'S A PROBLEM. I'M JUST GOING TO PUT IT OUT THERE BECAUSE WE'VE DISCUSSED IT IN A COMMUNITY MEETING.

THERE HAS BEEN RACIAL STATEMENTS CONCERNING WEST DALLAS AND A BLACK TRUSTEE NOT BEING OVER WEST DALLAS, AND SO MY COMMUNITY IS TORE UP ABOUT IT.

THEY CAME TO THE MEETING. YOU WERE THERE WHEN THEY SAID IT.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING I'M JUST BRINGING UP.

THEY WERE SAYING, "LET'S GET RID OF THE BLACK TRUSTEE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT BUILDING WEST DALLAS FOR THE BLACK COMMUNITY." SO IT'S AN ISSUE.

SO WHEN I'M REACHING OUT, I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT I COULD GIVE ACCESS TO A COMMUNITY THAT I DON'T HAVE ANSWERS TO.

AGAIN, YOU WAS THERE, MR. CARLOS.

YOU KNOW I'M NOT JUST MAKING THIS UP, SO THAT'S A CONCERN FOR ME.

HOW MANY PEOPLE DO I NEED TO GET RID OF? I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY IT'S THAT UGLY.

I WAS TOLD 20,000 THEN I WAS TOLD 23,000 THEN I WAS TOLD 30,000 THEN I WAS TOLD 25,000.

SO NOW TODAY I'M HERE IN 24000. SO WHICH ONE IS IT? IS IT 20, 23, 30, 25.

WHICH ONE IS IT? BECAUSE IT'S CONFUSING TO ME AT THIS POINT.

>> SURE. THE AVERAGE DISTRICT IS122,000.

IT IS A RANGE, ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT THE LOWEST DISTRICT BECOMES, SO IT CAN CHANGE.

THERE COULD BE SITUATION WHERE YOU COULD LOSE 25,000 AND STILL BE WITHIN 10 PERCENT.

THERE COULD BE A SITUATION WHERE YOU COULD LOSE 20.

IT CHANGES WITH EVERY PLAN THAT WE MAKE.

SO THERE ISN'T A SET NUMBER.

WE JUST HAVE TO BRING EVERYBODY, THE LARGEST DISTRICT WITHIN 10 PERCENT OF THE SMALLEST DISTRICT.

>> SO WHAT NUMBER IS THAT, MR. CARLOS? IS THAT 23,000? TODAY SHE SAID 24000.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN I'M LISTENING TO HIM, TOMORROW IT COULD CHANGE.

IS THAT WHAT YOU SAYING? SO TOMORROW IT COULD BE BACK UP TO 30,000?

>> NO. IT'S NOT THAT IT WOULD CHANGE, IT'S JUST A RANGE.

IT IS A RANGE, AND IF YOU ASK ME WHAT I THINK THE RANGE WILL END UP BEING IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 20 AND 26,000.

THAT'S WHY WE SAY 23,000 IF YOU ASK ME, BUT IT'S NOT A HARD NUMBER.

BECAUSE THE REASON I SAY THAT IS EVERY TIME WE MAKE A CHANGE TO ANY PLAN, ANY DISTRICT WITHIN A PLAN, IT IMPACTS EVERY OTHER DISTRICT.

SO ONCE WE KNOW WHAT THE FINAL DRAWING LOOKS LIKE, IT'S THE ONLY TIME WE CAN ACTUALLY GO BACK AND DO THE MATH TO SEE IF THE NUMBERS WORK.

SO RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS GIVING YOU AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT WE BELIEVE THE MATH IS GOING TO REQUIRE.

IF YOU ASK ME MY BEST BALLPARK, IT'S BETWEEN 20 AND 26,000.

>> YEAH. IT'D BE IN-BETWEEN THERE.

>> IT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE 30,000, BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN 18,000.

>> I NEED TO TELL THE COMMUNITY OR IF THEY'RE LISTENING, 26,000 NOW?

>> WELL, I WOULD SAY TELL THEM IT'S A RANGE OF BETWEEN 20 AND 26,000 BUT IT'S JUST A RANGE. WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

>> OKAY.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY, TRUSTEE JOHNSON, WHEN I TALKED ABOUT THE OVER AND UNDER, THAT'S IN RELATIONSHIP.

IF YOU LOOK ON SLIDE FOUR WHICH SHOWS THE CURRENT BREAKDOWN UNDER OUR CURRENT BOUNDARIES, THAT'S BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF WE HAD THE IDEAL NUMBER.

MEANING IF YOU TOOK THE TOTAL POP, DIVIDED IT BY 9 WHAT'S THAT NUMBER? THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT FIVE BEING APPROXIMATELY 24,000 ABOVE THAT VERSUS SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT SEVEN BEING 17,000 APPROXIMATELY BELOW THAT.

>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAYING AND I WANT TO RESPECT THE TIME.

THERE ARE OTHER TRUSTEES THAT HAVE TO LEAVE.

BUT WHEN WE COME OUT TO THE COMMUNITY, YOU GIVE US ONE NUMBER, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A RANGE.

BECAUSE IF YOU SAY, "HEY, IT'S GOING TO BE A RANGE BETWEEN THIS AND THAT", THEN THE COMMUNITY IS AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON AND I'M AWARE.

BUT WHEN YOU GIVE ME A HARD NUMBER, 23,000 THAT'S THE LAST CONVERSATION WE HAD, SO THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.

SO I WON'T DIGRESS BUT I WANT TO RESPECT THE TIME OF MY COLLEAGUES.

>> THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT AND GIVING US CHANCE TO CLARIFY.

>> THANK YOU, TRUSTEE JOHNSON.

JUSTIN MARSHAL, FOLLOWED BY TRUSTEE FOREMAN.

>> SO I WANT TO START BY COSIGNING ON EVERYTHING THAT TRUSTEE SAID.

WHEN I TAKE A LOOK AT THESE MAPS, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT SIGNIFICANT TIME AND CREATIVITY HAS BEEN INVESTED IN TRYING TO ADDRESS THE QUOTE UNQUOTE ISSUE OF WEST DALLAS, AND IT ALSO SEEMS TO ME THAT SIGNIFICANT TIME HAS BEEN INVESTED TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT THE THREE AFRICAN-AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS REMAIN AFRICAN-AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS.

TO BE CLEAR, I'M ALSO COMMITTED TO THAT GOAL.

I WANT THOSE THREE DISTRICTS TO REMAIN AFRICAN-AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS.

IT DOES, HOWEVER, APPEAR TO ME THAT NO TIME WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN INVESTED IN MAKING SURE THAT THE THREE HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS REMAIN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS.

[00:35:03]

IN FACT, MOST OF THESE MAPS DO BASICALLY NOTHING TO DISTRICT 4 WHICH MEANS THAT IT WILL NOT BE A HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT, AND THEY'VE DONE VERY LITTLE THAT I WOULD CALL CREATIVE WITH DISTRICT 8 TO HELP IT BECOME A MORE FORTIFIED HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT.

SO I WILL SOUNDLY REJECT ALL THREE OF THESE MAPS, AND WILL DO WHAT I CAN TO ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO SIMILARLY.

SO IF I WERE YOU GUYS, I WOULD THROW ALL THREE OF THESE AWAY AND START OVER BECAUSE THERE ARE MUCH BROADER CONCERNS THAN THOSE THAT ARE REFLECTED IN THESE MAPS.

I WILL ALSO TELL YOU THAT I FEEL UNHEARD IN THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH SOME OF YOU.

I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO MEET WITH ALL OF YOU, BUT I DID HAVE MY CHECK-IN CONVERSATION.

I'M NOT SURE, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I FOR ONE, HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT DATA ON THESE MAPS.

I'M VERY FAMILIAR AT A VERY DETAILED GRANULAR LEVEL WITH THE PRECINCTS AND THE DEMOGRAPHIC MAKEUP OF THOSE PRECINCTS, AND THE POPULATION OF EACH OF THE PRECINCTS.

I GAVE YOU GUYS VERY SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ABOUT WHAT I THOUGHT YOU COULD DO WITH DISTRICT 2.

EVERY SINGLE SUGGESTION THAT I MADE WAS IGNORED IN ALL THREE OF THESE MAPS.

THERE'S NOT A SINGLE THING THAT I SAID I WOULD DO IF I WERE YOU EVEN PROPOSED ON ANY OF THESE MAPS.

FURTHERMORE, I GAVE YOU SPECIFIC IDEAS OF PARTS OF MY DISTRICT THAT YOU COULD GIVE TO DISTRICT 8 THAT WOULD SERVE THE OBJECTIVES OF BOTH LOWERING THE TOTAL POPULATION OF MY DISTRICT AND MAKING DISTRICT 8 MORE HISPANIC.

SO BACK TO THE EARLIER POINT OF NOT MAKING SURE THAT IT'S A HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT, YOU COULD HAVE TAKEN DIFFERENT PARTS OF DISTRICT 2 THAT WOULD HAVE LOWERED THE POPULATION SIZE AND INCREASED THE HISPANIC VOTING, CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION OF DISTRICT 8, AND I TOLD YOU SPECIFIC PRECINCTS THAT YOU COULD DO THAT WITH.

NONE OF IT WAS EVEN CONSIDERED.

IT'S NOT IN A SINGLE MAP OPTION HERE.

SO TO TRUSTEE [LAUGHTER] JOHNSON'S COMMENTS ABOUT HOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU GUYS, I THOUGHT I HAD COMMUNICATED WITH YOU GUYS.

I SPENT SEVERAL HOURS WITH YOU IN A ROOM LOOKING AT A MAP AND I POINTED OUT SPECIFIC PRECINCTS.

[LAUGHTER] I MEAN, I GOT DOWN INTO THE WEEDS AND I FEEL LIKE I WAS COMPLETELY IGNORED.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU GUYS THAT YOU GUYS FIGURE OUT A BETTER TRUSTEE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS BECAUSE I, FOR ONE, HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION [LAUGHTER] ABOUT THIS THAT I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU GUYS.

I THOUGHT I HAD DONE SO, APPARENTLY I FAILED IN COMMUNICATION.

SO WE NEED TO REVISIT THAT WITH ANOTHER FORUM.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT ALL THREE OF THESE MAPS REMOVE PART OF DISTRICT 2 THAT I WILL NOT CONSENT TO REMOVE.

MY OBJECTIVE, AS I COMMUNICATED IS TO BOTH SHRINK THE DISTRICT 2 BORDERS BECAUSE I KNOW WE NEED TO DO THAT FROM A POPULATION STANDPOINT.

WE NEED TO TAKE PARTS OF DISTRICT 2 AND GIVE THEM TO DISTRICT 8 THAT ARE HISPANIC IN NATURE.

MY THIRD CRITERIA, WHICH IS NOT AT THE TOP OF THE LIST AND I GET THAT, BUT IT'S VERY EASY TO ACHIEVE THIS WITHOUT SACRIFICING ANY OF THE ACTUAL CRITERIA, IS TO TRY TO GET AS MUCH OF THE FEEDER PATTERN TOGETHER AS POSSIBLE.

BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY COMMUNITY INPUT THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME IN ALL OF MY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTS SESSIONS.

THE ONLY THING THAT ANYBODY IN DISTRICT 2 HAS SAID, IS WE WOULD LIKE FOR AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE OF THE WOODROW FEEDER PATTERN TO ALL BE UNDER ONE TRUSTEE AND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AS THE HILLCREST FEEDER PATTERN TO ALL BE UNDER ONE TRUSTEE.

WHAT YOU GUYS DID HERE WAS TAKE HALF THE HILLCREST FEEDER PATTERN AWAY, [LAUGHTER] WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT I SAID THAT I WANTED YOU TO DO.

SO I'M GOING TO STOP MY TIRADE, GET OFF MY SOAPBOX THERE, BUT WE'VE GOT TO TIGHTEN UP THE ENGAGEMENT AND THE FEEDBACK PROCESS.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE NEED TO TAKE TRUSTEE CARREON'S COMMENTS TO HEART AND ANY MAP THAT COMES BACK TO US HAS GOT TO BE ABLE TO LEGALLY STAND ON ITS OWN.

BECAUSE I THINK ALL THREE OF THESE MAPS, AND ASIDE FROM ME NOT BEING WILLING TO VOTE FOR THEM, I THINK ALL THREE OF THESE MAPS WOULD GET US SUED.

THANKS. [NOISE]

>> THANK YOU TRUSTEE MARSHALL. TRUSTEE FOREMAN.

>> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO START WITH THE FIRST STATEMENT BY TRUSTEE MARSHALL ABOUT THERE'S BEEN SOME CONSPIRACY TO TRY CREATE [OVERLAPPING].

DON'T THROW YOUR HANDS UP.

I'M GOING TO FINISH.

[BACKGROUND] LET ME FINISH.

[00:40:02]

TO CREATE MAPS THAT MAINTAIN THE THREE AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICTS.

I THINK THAT'S LUDICROUS AND EVERY TRUSTEE HAS HEARD AND ONLY ONE TRUSTEE SHOWED UP TODAY TO CREATE MAPS TO PRESENT TO YOU.

I'VE HAD TWO PRESENTED TO YOU AND I'M WORKING ON THE THIRD ONE.

YOU DON'T LIKE THE MAPS THEY'RE PRESENTING? [INAUDIBLE].

>> I HAVE GOT ONE.

>> OKAY, GOOD. NOW, BACK TO TRUSTEE CARREON'S POINT.

I KNOW THERE'S A FIGHT OVER WHO'S GOING TO REPRESENT WITH DALLAS.

I'M NOT GETTING IN THAT FIGHT, BUT WHAT I WILL TELL YOU, IS I LOOK AT PLAN 3, DISTRICT 4, 68.9 PERCENT HISPANIC, DISTRICT 7, 69.4 PERCENT HISPANIC, DISTRICT 8, 61.9 PERCENT HISPANIC.

THOSE NON-HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE.

I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE FOR ME, IS WHEN WILL THE CONSIDERATION FOR MAPS THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED BY THE TRUSTEES TAKE PLACE? THEN IN THAT CONSIDERATION, I THINK IT SHOULD BE A CONVERSATION WITH THE TRUSTEES.

THEY HAD PRESENTED THE MAPS, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO STAND BY, THIS DISTRICT WORKS BEST WITH A THREE, THREE AND THREE.

THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL AND I THINK WE NEED TO TRY TO STAY THERE AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE MORE AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION IN MY DISTRICT, AGAIN, MORE HISPANIC.

I'M NOT CRYING ABOUT IT.

I REPRESENT ALL OF THEM.

EVERYBODY OVER THERE A GAME MORE ANGLO.

I'M NOT CRYING ABOUT IT.

I REPRESENT EVERYBODY.

I THINK THAT THIS TALK ABOUT JUST TRYING TO REPRESENT ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE NEEDS TO STOP, BECAUSE WHOEVER IS IN YOUR DISTRICT, YOU HAVE TO REPRESENT THEM.

DO YOU WANT TO CREATE OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS FOR THE DIFFERENT ETHNICITIES? OF COURSE YOU DO.

BUT I NEED AN ANSWER AS TO WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE MAPS THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED.

I WANT TO SAY ONE OTHER THING TO REAL QUICKLY BEFORE YOU SAY THAT.

IS IT THAT I HAVE HAD SUCCESS.

I DIDN'T CONTACT YOU, ROCKY.

I CONTRACTED THE DISTRICT AND GOT ONE OF THE DISTRICT EMPLOYEES TO WORK WITH ME ON DRAWING MAPS.

I DIDN'T GOT THAT NOW.

BY THE WAY, HE'S REALLY GOOD THAT THEY KNOW ALSO ONE IS REALLY GOOD.

HE'S BEEN A GREAT HELP AND ASSISTANCE TO ME IN TRYING TO DO THAT.

SO I DIDN'T CONTACT THEM.

I WENT OUTSIDE OF THEM, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE THEIR WORK AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO REALLY TALK TO INDIVIDUAL TRUSTEES BASED ON JUST THEIR PERCEPTION, SO I WENT TO OUTSIDE.

BUT AGAIN, BACK TO MY QUESTION.

WHEN WILL YOU CONSIDER WHAT THE TRUSTEES HAVE PRESENTED AND THEN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE TRUSTEES?

>> TRUSTEE FOREMAN TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I THINK SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

I KNOW THAT UNDER OUR SLIDE 74 OF THIS POWERPOINT, WE'VE GOT A CURRENTLY A RECOMMENDED DEADLINE OF OCTOBER 22ND TO GET THOSE TO US.

AGAIN, I ALWAYS SAY FOR PURPOSES OF PUBLIC INPUT AND COMMENT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER ON IN THIS PROCESS, IT IS FOR THAT BENEFIT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

>> OKAY, YOU HAVE TO ALIGN THEM. I'M READY.

>> DO WE HAVE?

>> YOU MENTIONED, DO WE HAVE? [OVERLAPPING]. TO BE CLEAR, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY TRUSTEE-DRIVEN OR TRUSTEE-DRAFTED [OVERLAPPING] MAPS TO DATE.

>> I DID. I SENT TWO, BUT I'LL GO BACK AND RESEND THEM, BUT I SENT TWO.

I'LL GET THE ORIGINAL.

>> MAYBE IF YOU SEND THEM THROUGH BOARD SERVICES, WE JUST HAVEN'T GOTTEN THEM YET.

>> DON'T LET IT ON MY BOARD SERVICE [OVERLAPPING] NO.

[LAUGHTER].

[00:45:01]

I'LL GET THE [OVERLAPPING] EMAIL THAT I SENT YOU.

>> WHICHEVER WAY YOU SEND IT, WE WILL BE HAPPY TO RECEIVE THEM FOR ANY TRUSTEES THAT HAVE WORKED ON THEIR OWN MAPS.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHO I SENT IT TO. DID I SEND IT TO YOU?

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> NOT BOARD SERVICES.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU TRUSTEE FOREMAN. TRUSTEE MICCICHE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.

I JUST HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS AND A QUESTION.

I DO THINK WE NEED TO BE APPLYING THE CRITERIA THAT WE ALL TALKED ABOUT AND AGREED UPON.

MY CONSTITUENTS DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY ATTENDANCE BOUNDARY CHANGES AND THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY FEEDER PATTERN CHANGES.

ON THE THREE MAPS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD AS ALTERNATIVES, THERE'S NOT REALLY THAT MUCH OF AN IMPACT ON DISTRICT 3.

I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT'S THE WAY IT WILL END UP GIVING THAT WE'RE IN THE CORNER OF A DISTRICT ANYWAY.

BUT I CANNOT TELL FROM THE MAPS NO MATTER WHAT SOFTWARE I'VE USED, I CAN'T REALLY SEE THE STREETS THAT IDENTIFY THE AREAS OF DISTRICT 3 THAT WOULD BE LOST AND THAT THE AREAS THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO DISTRICT 3 ON MAP, ON PLANS 2 AND 3.

PROBABLY, GOING TO NEED SOME HELP ON BEING ABLE TO ZOOM DOWN TO THAT LEVEL, BECAUSE EVEN WHEN I ZOOM AS FAR AS WE CAN ON IT, I CAN'T READ THIS STREETS, SO IF YOU COULD PROVIDE ME WITH THE TOOLS TO GET TO THAT POINT OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR RIGHT NOW, JUST SHOW ME WHAT'S BEEN ADDED UP THERE IN THE AREA NEAR DISTRICT 3 FROM, IT LOOKS LIKE IN VICKERY MEADOW.

WHAT'S BEEN ADDED IN THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE DOWN THERE BY 30.

I'D APPRECIATE IT, BUT I JUST CAN'T TELL WHAT THE STREETS ARE WITHOUT JUST GUESSING.

BUT I THANK YOU FOR THE WORK.

THIS IS REALLY HARD.

I KNOW THAT THE CONCERNS THAT TRUSTEE [INAUDIBLE] HAS EXPRESSED THAT I HAVE HEARD THOSE AND I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT MEETS ALL OF OUR CRITERIA AND OF COURSE, IS COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, TRUSTEE MICCICHE.

ANY OTHER TRUSTEES HAVE FOR FIRST ROUND?

>> MR. BOARD PRESIDENT?

>> YES.

>> I BELIEVE MR. GARDENER WANTED TO [OVERLAPPING] RESPOND.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> I'M HAPPY THAT EITHER TODAY, I COULD DRILL IN, BUT I'VE MADE SOME MAPS THAT HAVE MORE DETAIL AND ROWS IN THEIR LARGE PDFS, WE COULD SHARE THOSE.

THEY ARE ALREADY CREATED.

I DESIGNED THEM BIG ON PURPOSE, SO THAT YOU CAN PUT ON YOUR COMPUTER AND ZOOM IN.

I THINK THOSE WOULD BE HANDY TO SHARE.

>> WELL, I WOULD CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT FOR THE AREAS THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO OR SUBTRACTED FROM DISTRICT 3 ON PLAN 2 AND PLAN 3.

>> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> YEAH, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU TRUSTEE MICCICHE. I DO HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.

I WANT TO WHOLEHEARTEDLY UNDERSCORE TRUSTEE CARREON'S POINT.

THAT WAS MY FIRST NOTICING IN LOOKING AT THESE.

I HAVE SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE RETROGRESSION FOR THE HISPANIC VOTING POPULATION IN ALL OF THESE MAPS AND I DID NOT SEE THE POPULATION GROWTH REFLECTED IN THAT WAY TO MAINTAIN THAT WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID RETROGRESSION.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION SINCE I'M NOT A LAWYER.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE WE CAN ALL LOOK AT IT FROM DIFFERENT WAYS, IF THIS WERE TO BE LOOKED AT BY A COURT OR A LAWYER OR A JUDGE, WHAT STATISTICS WILL MEASURE AND CAN GIVE THE SENSE OF WHETHER RETROGRESSION IS HAPPENING OR NOT? WHAT SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT?

>> PRESIDENT MACKEY, AND I'M SURE THE OTHER ATTORNEYS HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON THIS, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE START AT BASELINE WITH VOTING AGE POPULATION.

I KNOW IN THE PAST THAT THAT IS WHAT I HAVE PERSONALLY USED IN WORKING WITH ROCKY AND OTHER DEMOGRAPHERS, ESPECIALLY AT THAT TIME, WE WERE SUBMITTING LIKE DALLAS DID LAST TIME TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, IN THAT SUBMISSION THAT WENT UP FOR THIS DISTRICT AND MANY OTHER DISTRICTS, IT WAS VAP, IT WAS VOTING AGE POPULATION,

[00:50:02]

AND USING IT AGAINST BENCHMARKS FROM THE PREVIOUS REDISTRICTING TIME PERIOD.

THIS GO AROUND, WE HAVE HAD THE BENEFIT THROUGH ROCKIES GROUP TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT CVAP WITH REGARDS TO THE CURRENT CENSUS DATA, WHICH I THINK IS VERY HELPFUL.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS COMING STRAIGHT FROM THE US CENSUS, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE OBTAINED WITH REGARD TO THAT AMERICAN SURVEY.

BUT AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT CONGRUENT.

THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE AS A LEGAL TEAM IS THAT CVAP DATA DOES NOT NECESSARILY ALIGN PERFECTLY WITH THE VAP DATA, I GUESS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE COMING FROM THE US CENSUS.

BUT IT IS HELPFUL AND I THINK IT GIVES THEM MORE FINE-TUNED AND DETAILED ANALYSIS AND THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING FROM TRUSTEE CARREON, IS LET'S LOOK AT THAT AND SEE HOW THAT'S REALLY PLAYING.

THE ONLY DOWNSIDE IS AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, WE DON'T HAVE A BENCHMARK TO MEASURE IT AGAINST.

WE DON'T HAVE 2010 CVAP, BUT WE'RE GOING TO GET IT BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE HEARING ON BEHALF OF THE TRUSTEES IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT.

WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THAT AND THEN OPERATE OFF OF THOSE BENCHMARKS SO THAT THE BOARD CAN HAVE THAT INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT ARE THE CHANGES AND HOW SIGNIFICANT, IF ANY, ARE THOSE CHANGES WHEN YOU USE A BENCHMARK.

>> THAT'S HELPFUL. IN THAT, CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION IS THE DIRECT CORRELATORY TO VOTING.

YOU HAVE TO BE A CITIZEN TO VOTE.

I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THAT, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT LAST TIME AROUND.

I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT THAT AND LOOK AT IT ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL OF OUR DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS.

BUT EVEN LOOKING AT VOTING AGE POPULATION, WHAT WE SEE IN EACH OF THE THREE PLANS IS FROM WHERE WE WERE AT WITH HISPANIC VOTING AGE POPULATION IN 2010, THERE HAVE BEEN FALLS IN AT LEAST TWO OF THE THREE ON ALL OF THESE PLANS, SO I THINK EITHER WAY YOU SLICE IT, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE AND LOOK AT THAT AS WE GO FORWARD.

I WANT TO DEFINITELY UNDERSCORE THAT.

I DO ALSO JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT, IN LOOKING AT THESE, MY MIND GOES TO, HOW ARE WE TRYING NOT TO CONTINUALLY SPLIT UP NEIGHBORHOODS IN THIS? BEING REALLY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WHICH OF THOSE NEIGHBORS.

I THINK THE ONLY WAY THAT CAN TRULY BE GLEANED BY YOU ALL IS FROM OUR CONVERSATIONS DURING OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS WITH YOU, LIKE TRUSTEE MARSHALL ALLUDED TO ABOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD CANNOT BE SPLIT UP OR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE BETTER AS CLOSER NEIGHBORHOOD WITH OVER HERE, BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING THAT FROM OUR COMMUNITY.

I KNOW I'VE GOTTEN THAT FROM MY CONSTITUENTS, AND SO I DO JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AND THOSE DETAILS AS IMPORTANT AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN THIS PROCESS.

>> MOST DEFINITELY, PRESIDENT MACKEY.

AGAIN, ALL OF US HAD THE BENEFIT OF SITTING IN ON TRUSTEE MARSHALL'S MEETING AND SO WE CERTAINLY WANT TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND AND HEAR THAT PERSPECTIVE AND GET MORE INFORMATION.

ULTIMATELY, ALL THAT INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK, THERE'S A PUSH AND PULL IN THIS PROCESS.

>> RIGHT.

>> THERE'S A PUSH AND PULL BETWEEN THE CRITERIA, QUITE FRANKLY, THAT THE BOARD HAS ADOPTED.

WE SEE AND ROCKY HAS SEEN HOW, IF WE BRING IN A CERTAIN AREA BECAUSE THAT IS AN AREA THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO THAT PARTICULAR SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT, IT MAY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON SOME OTHER CRITERIA.

>> I THINK THAT'S TOTALLY FAIR AND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY A PART, IS WHEN YOU HAVE NINE CRITERIA.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT AS WE GO FORWARD TO BE ABLE TO AGGREGATE THAT AND HELP TRUSTEES AND THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND, THIS IS WHY THIS PRECINCT NEEDS TO BE SPLIT AND WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU WERE TO PUT THE WHOLE PRECINCT HERE.

THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE TRIED TO FALL ALONG THIS GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY AND WHAT IT WOULD DO TO THIS BALANCE.

I THINK THAT'S THE MISSING LINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO FIND A WAY TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THE FEEDBACK YOU'RE GETTING FROM NINE VERY DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES FROM ACROSS DALLAS AND BE ABLE TO HELP SENSE MAKE OF THAT.

WE'LL JUST NEED TO THINK ABOUT, WHAT IS THE PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO MATCH THE FEEDBACK YOU'RE RECEIVING WITH THE IMPACT ON THE MAPS AS WE GO FORWARD?

>> ONE MORE POINT.

>> THAT'S IT FOR ME. WE'LL CONTINUE WITH FIRST ROUND. WE'LL GO WITH TRUSTEE HENRY.

>> WHEN WE TALK ABOUT LEGALITY, IF THIS WERE TO GET CHALLENGED, HISTORICALLY, DOES IT GET CHALLENGED UNDER VAP OR CVAP? WHAT DO DISTRICTS USUALLY SUBMIT? VAP OR CVAP?

>> WHEN WE WERE IN THE REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT FOR PRE-CLEARANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, LAST GO AROUND BASED ON THE DOCUMENTATION WE OBTAINED, IT WAS VAP AND TOTAL POPULATION.

THAT'S WHAT WAS SUBMITTED.

>> HAS IT EVER BEEN CVAP?

>> NO, I CAN'T SAY EVER.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT HAPPENED BACK IN 2000, TRUSTEE HENRY,

[00:55:04]

BUT BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED IN 2010, THAT CVAP WAS NOT INFORMATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED.

>> ARE YOU ABLE TO GET THAT INFORMATION, 2000?

>> WE PROBABLY COULD.

>> CAN YOU GET THAT INFORMATION AND SEE WHAT WAS USED IN 2000, IF IT'S VAP OR CVAP? [OVERLAPPING] 2010 WAS VAP, 2000 YOU DON'T KNOW.

>> 2000, WE HAVE NO BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT CVAP WAS SUBMITTED, BUT WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> I'M ASKING, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT OR NOT?

>> WE'LL HAVE TO SEE THE SUBMISSION THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT THAT TIME.

>> IF YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT AND SHARE THEM WITH OUR TRUSTEES, WHAT USED IN 2000.

I'M NEW TO THIS. I THINK EVERYBODY'S NEW TO THIS, GENERALLY.

I KNOW SOME PEOPLE, FOREMAN WAS AROUND, NOT ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME, BUT THE REST OF US IT'S OUR FIRST TIME GOING THROUGH.

I'M HEARING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT VAP AND CVAP AND TRUSTEE CARREON THREW ME OFF WHEN I HEARD HIS NUMBERS AND I HEARD TRUSTEE FOREMAN SAY NUMBERS.

WE NEED TO BE PLAYING, TO ME, ON THE SAME FIELD, WHATEVER IT IS.

WE CAN'T SWITCH FROM CVAP TO VAP WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT.

THIS IS ISN'T A POLITICAL ARGUMENT, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION THIS SERIOUS ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WE NEED TO PICK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO USE AND GO FOR IT.

BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT CVAP, IT'S CONVENIENT FOR SOME, IT'S CONVENIENT FOR NONE, AND THE SAME FOR VAP.

I COULD SIT HERE AND MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR USING VAP, BUT I CAN SIT AND MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR USING CVAP DEPENDING ON WHERE I'M TRYING TO GET AT THE END OF THE DAY.

IF WE CAN PICK ONE, FOR ME, WHATEVER IS CONSISTENTLY USED IN THE PAST HELPS ME JUST BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE STAYING CONSISTENT.

WE'RE NOT MOVING THE NEEDLE FOR ANY OTHER REASON.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN 2000.

WE CONFIRMED IN 2010 IT WAS VAP.

THEN TRUSTEES, AT SOME POINT, I'D LIKE TO AGREE WHICH ONE ARE WE GOING TO USE WHEN WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.

BECAUSE IF WE SWITCH BACK AND FORTH, IT'S GOING TO GET REAL.

>> UGLY.

>> IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO COME TO A MAP BECAUSE DUSTIN MIGHT START QUOTING VAP, I'M TALKING ABOUT CVAP.

THE NUMBERS ARE, LIKE FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN, TO THAT POINT, THAT YOU-ALL WERE USING, DISTRICT 8, IF YOU USE VAP FOR HISPANIC, IT'S 59.7 PERCENT, BUT IF YOU GO TO CVAP, IT'S 36 PERCENT.

THAT'S SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.

WE GOT TO PICK ONE IN MY OPINION.

THE SAME WITH IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT BLACK FOLKS, I'M A BLACK PERSON, IT'S 36.8 PERCENT IN DISTRICT 9 AND IT HOPS UP TO 51.7 PERCENT IN CVAP.

IT'S JUST TOO BIG OF A VARIANCE FOR US TO BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO IN MY OPINION.

I WOULD REALLY LIKE SOMEHOW FOR US, PRESIDENT MACKEY, TO PICK ONE AND LET'S MOVE FORWARD ON THAT.

OTHERWISE, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DRAW MAPS BOUNCING BETWEEN THE TWO.

[NOISE] I THINK THIS IS THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE NOW.

I REALLY HOPE WE LISTEN TO TRUSTEES AND THEIR PERSPECTIVES, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE SIMULTANEOUSLY HELPING US SOLVE AN ISSUE LIKE DISTRICT 8, MOVING THE PERCENTAGES UP.

IF TRUSTEE MARSHALL HAS PROVIDED A SOLUTION THAT WORKS, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT, I HAVEN'T TALKED TO HIM, I DON'T KNOW, LET'S SAY, WHAT IT'S TALKING ABOUT, BUT IF SOME TRUSTEE HAD PROVIDED A SOLUTION THAT HELPS US MEET OUR END GAME, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE DON'T DO THAT TO KEEP THE BALL MOVING BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME.

THAT'S MY OTHER COMMENT. IF WE KEEP BOUNCING BETWEEN THESE TWO DIFFERENT, CVAP AND VAP, THE CLOCK'S TICKING.

THIS IS ANOTHER MEETING THAT WE'RE LEAVING AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MIGHT BE STARTING OVER.

I'M NOT SURE, BUT AT LEAST ONE TRUSTEE SAID HE'S NOT SUPPORTING ANY OF THESE AND GOING TO ACTIVATE AND TRY TO GET OTHERS TO FEEL THE SAME.

WE GOT TO REMOVE AS MANY VARIABLES AS POSSIBLE TO GET AS MANY CONSTANTS THAT WE HAVE AND MOVE FORWARD.

I THINK THAT STARTS WITH THIS CVAP, VAP DISCUSSION.

IGNORANT ME, AT LEAST KNOWS I'M NOT CONFUSED WHEN I HEAR JOYCE AND JOE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING WHEN ACTUALLY THEY'RE NOT.

THEY'RE BOTH RIGHT, BUT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS. [LAUGHTER]

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW.

>> TRUSTEE FOREMAN FOLLOWED BY TRUSTEE MARSHALL FOLLOWED BY TRUSTEE JOHNSON.

>> ACTUALLY, TRUSTEE HENRY DID A GOOD JOB IN ADDRESSING MY CONCERNS ABOUT CVAP.

ONE OF THE THINGS, I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE, IS CVAP A LEGAL REQUIREMENT? [BACKGROUND] [NOISE]

>> DID YOU QUESTION IS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT.

I GUESS I'M GOING TO ASK YOU [OVERLAPPING].

>> IF WE SUBMIT MAPS, WOULD CVAP BE A REASON TO CHALLENGE THE MAPS? I'LL SAY IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

>> YES. I THINK THERE IS AN OPENING THERE THAT IF CVAP WERE TO SHOW EXTREMELY LOW PERCENTAGES.

BUT AGAIN, DO WE HAVE A BENCHMARK? DO WE HAVE A BENCHMARK BY WHICH WE CAN SHOW THE CHANGE ANALYSIS OF ANYTHING BECAUSE WE'RE MISSING THAT COMPONENT.

[01:00:01]

THEN YES, SOMEONE COULD ARGUABLY, DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT BENCHMARK SHOWS IN RELATION TO WHAT THE CURRENT CVAP IS SHOWING.

IF THAT CHANGE ANALYSIS HITS A VERY LOW NUMBER, I GUESS IT'LL BE A VERY HIGH NUMBER TO DRIVE A NUMBER DOWN.

THEN YES, THEY COULD MAYBE ARGUE [OVERLAPPING].

>>WHAT WOULD A VERY LOW NUMBER BE? SAY THEY'RE AT 50 PERCENT AND THEN IT DROPPED TO 10? WOULD A LOW NUMBER BE THEY'RE AT 50 PERCENT AND THEY DROPPED TO 49?

>> THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN WE HAVE POPULATIONS THAT ARE SITTING IN THE 40TH PERCENTILE AND PRIMARILY WHAT WE'VE LOOKED AT IN THE PAST, IN MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN VAP.

THEN THAT IS A POLARITY DISTRICT, IT'S A POLARITY DISTRICT AND STILL WE THEN LOOK AT WHAT'S THE VOTING HISTORY BEEN IN THAT DISTRICT SO FAR, IN TERMS OF WHO GETS ELECTED.

IF YOU CONSISTENTLY HAVE A POLARITY POPULATION THAT IS MINORITY, AND THEN YOU STILL HAVE MINORITIES BEING ELECTED TO OFFICE, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT MAJORITY MINORITY.

THEN IT COUNTERS AGAINST THE ARGUMENT OF RETROGRESSION.

BECAUSE A CANDIDATE OF CHOICE IS STILL BEING ABLE TO BE ELECTED TO OFFICE.

IT'S HARD FOR ME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHAT'S TOO LOW.

I THINK AN OBVIOUS ANSWER WOULD BE IF YOU WENT FROM 40 SOMETHING PERCENT DOWN TO 10 YES, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT DROP.

BUT TO THE EXTENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGES BETWEEN SOMEONE THAT IS A MAJORITY-MINORITY AT SOME POINT AND THEN AFTER A CHANGE IN BOUNDARIES, WE DROP DOWN TO A 40TH PERCENTILE OR LOWER.

THEN THE GOOD QUESTION BECOMES, LET'S LOOK AT HOW THEY'VE BEEN ELECTING CANDIDATES OF CHOICE IN THE TIME PERIOD THAT WE DID THIS LAST TIME. [OVERLAPPING]

>> WE HAVE NO HISTORY WHERE WE USED TO SEE THAT.

WE HAVE NO KNOWN HISTORY.

>> WE DO NOT HAVE CVAP FOR THE 2010.

>> OKAY.

>> REDISTRICTING PROCESS.

>> YOU DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER TIME?

>> I'M NOT AWARE.

NONE OF US ARE AWARE OF IT BEING USED [OVERLAPPING].

>> ALL I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS WE HAVE NO KNOWN HISTORY, AND I GUESS YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO GO BACK AND LOOK.

BUT CURRENTLY WE HAVE NO KNOWN HISTORY WHERE WE USE CVAP.

THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO GET YOU TO SAY IS YES, WE HAVE NO KNOWN HISTORY. [OVERLAPPING].

>> WE HAVE NOT.

THERE'S NOT CVAP FROM THE 2010 PROCESS.

WE KNOW RIGHT NOW.

WE CANNOT SAY IT WAS USED.

>> EXACTLY, AND YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT [OVERLAPPING].

>> BEFORE THAT WE ABSOLUTELY DON'T KNOW EITHER WAY.

>> WE HAVE NO KNOWN HISTORY UNTIL YOU GUYS GIVE US FURTHER HISTORY.

>> CVAP IS A COMPONENT OF THE RETROGRESSION ANALYSIS.

I WANT TO STRESS THAT.

IT'S ALSO A COMPONENT OF VAP ITSELF.

WHAT WE'RE ENGAGING IS THE PERCENTAGE OF THAT VOTING POPULATION.

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT VOTING POPULATION IS OF CITIZEN ELIGIBILITY.

[OVERLAPPING].

>> ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS WE HAVE NO KNOWN HISTORY.

THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO START BECAUSE YOU KEEP EXPLAINING IT BUT WE HAVE NO KNOWN HISTORY.

WE'RE GOING TO LOOK INTO THAT.

BUT I AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH TRUSTEE HENRY.

WE KEEP VACILLATING BACK AND FORTH.

WE'LL NEVER GET TO AN ANSWER.

>> IF I MAY TRUSTEE FORMAN CAN I MAKE ONE ADDITIONAL NOTE ABOUT CVAP.

THIS IS NEPHY. CAN YOU ALL SEE ME?

>> HI, NEPHY.

>> HI, ONE THING I WANTED TO ADD ABOUT CVAP IN ADDITION TO WHAT LAURA SAID EARLIER ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT'S AN APPROXIMATION, THESE ARE NOT, AGAIN NUMBERS THAT WE'VE DERIVED FROM THE CENSUS.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AS RELIABLE AS WE'D LIKE IT TO BE.

THE RISK WE RUN IF WE RELY EXCLUSIVELY ON CVAP IS, WE DO RUN THE RISK OF BEING EVEN MORE RETROGRESSIVE.

BECAUSE IF WE LOOK AT THE TOTAL CVAP POPULATION, HISPANIC POPULATION IN A DISTRICT, IF WE WERE TO RELY ON THAT, IS 25.9 PERCENT.

IF WE WERE TO RELY ON THAT TO DETERMINE, FOR EXAMPLE, HOW MANY OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS THE HISPANIC POPULATION NEEDED IN ORDER TO HAVE REPRESENTATION.

WE WOULD RUN THE RISK OF BEING RETROGRESSIVE BASED ON THAT.

WE REALLY DO HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE CONSIDER THESE NUMBERS GOING FORWARD.

I SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT IN THE NUMBERS THAT WE USE.

I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

AND AGAIN, TRUSTEE MACKEY, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AROUND ONE PARTICULAR AREA OR WE'RE GOING TO KEEP VACILLATING BACK AND FORTH.

>> THANK YOU, TRUSTEE FORMAN. TRUSTEE JOHNSON.

>> YES. I WANT TO BE CLEAR.

I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.

THERE IS A [INAUDIBLE] TRUSTEE FORMAN OVER WEST DALLAS. YOU'RE RIGHT.

[01:05:03]

I AGREE WITH WHAT TRUSTEE HENRY IS SAYING.

I ALSO AGREE WITH TRUSTEE MOSES IS SAID AS HE GAVE SOLUTIONS TO ASSIST TRUSTEE CARREON WITH THE LATINO VOTE.

I AGREE WE NEED TO KEEP THAT A HISPANIC CHAIR.

I THINK WE'RE DOING WELL.

AS YOU SAID, WE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL WITH THREE, THREE AND THREE, AND IT'S EQUITABLE.

THAT'S WHAT OUR BOARD IS BALANCED BY.

THIS IS A BOARD THAT SUPPORTS EQUITY, I AGREE, BUT I'M ALSO GOT TO LET IT BE KNOWN, THAT THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN WEST DALLAS IS OFFENDED.

AND ALTHOUGH I'M A TRUSTEE, MAKE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

I AM A COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS AND AN ORGANIZER, AND I'M A PASTOR IN THAT COMMUNITY.

WE COULD DANCE AROUND THIS ALL WE WANT AND I SHARED IT WITH TRUSTEE CAROLINE AND TRUSTEE MACKEY, I'M NOT GOING TO LET BLACK VOTES BE PUSHED OUT IN MY COMMUNITY WHERE I'M PASTOR.

I'M GOING TO FIGHT FOR THAT SCHOOL.

I'M GOING TO FIGHT FOR MY COMMUNITY.

I'M GOING TO NEED EVERYBODY TO KNOW AND WE'LL SAY IT, AND WE SAID IT BEFORE WE START WORKING ON THIS PROCESS.

AND THEY CAME TO THE CHURCH AND LET IT BE KNOWN WE WILL SAY IT.

AND THE BROWN PEOPLE CAME AND SAY IT.

WHAT I'VE GIVEN, I'VE GIVEN THE MAJORITY OF WEST DALLAS TO TRUSTEE CARREON, AND ONLY KEPT THE LITTLE HOOK OVER A PIECE THAT HIGH SCHOOL WHERE THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE.

I'VE GIVEN.

MAP TWO SHOWS THAT.

THEY'VE GOT LITTLE PROBLEMS OVER THERE, BUT THEY'RE PROBABLY CLOSEST TO WHAT I WOULD SUPPORT.

BUT I'M NOT GOING TO LET PEOPLE JUST PUSH THE BLACK PEOPLE AROUND.

IT'LL BE A MAJOR ISSUE.

YOU ALL AIN'T SEE NO ISSUE, BUT TRUST ME IT'LL BE A MAJOR ISSUE. THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

THAT'S NOT EQUITY. I KNOW I'VE GOT TO GIVE IT UP.

I KNOW HOW I'M TALKING, I KNOW I'VE GOT TO GIVE IT UP.

BUT IT'S GOING TO BE DONE RIGHT AND THAT'S COMIC BECAUSE THEY'RE CALLING ME, THEY TEXTING ME, ON MY PHONE.

THE GENTRIFICATION THAT'S GOING ON IN WEST DALLAS IS NOT MEANT FOR BLACK PEOPLE.

THAT'S A PROBLEM. I'M SAYING IT PUBLICLY BECAUSE I'VE HAD PRIVATE CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.

BUT WE'RE NOT GOING PUSH BLACK FOLKS AROUND IN THE WEST DALLAS COMMUNITY.

IT'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR PROBLEM.

I WANT TO MAKE THAT BE KNOWN. I'M WILLING TO WORK WITH ANY TRUSTEE TO MAKE SURE WE GET WHAT WE NEED TO GET.

BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE BULLIED AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE PUSHED AROUND.

>> THANK YOU, TRUSTEE JOHNSON. TRUSTEE CARREON.

>> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I JUST WANT TO PUT THIS CONVERSATION BACK INTO CONTEXT, WHERE IT STARTED.

VAP OR CVAP, I THINK OBVIOUSLY, IF A DISTRICT IS GOING TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT, THEN THE PEOPLE IN THAT DISTRICT THAT WILL BE ABLE TO VOTE NEED TO BE CITIZENS.

THAT ASIDE, REMEMBER THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION IN THE LAST DECADE, OVER HALF OF THE GROWTH THAT HAS OCCURRED IN DALLAS ISD HAS BEEN OF HISPANIC VOTING AGED PEOPLE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE VAP.

I THINK I'LL JUST ECHO TRUSTEE MARSHALL, TRUSTEE MACKEY, OTHERS, WE NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD EXPECT US TO SEE IN THE NEXT ITERATIONS OF THIS MAP.

>> THANK YOU, TRUSTEE CARREON.

I SEE NO OTHER FEEDBACK HERE.

OBVIOUSLY, A LOT OF WORK TO GO HOPEFULLY A LOT OF FEEDBACK HERE FROM THIS.

I WANT TO DRIVE EVERYONE'S ATTENTION TO THE NEXT ROUND.

ALL OF THE TRUSTEES ARE GOING TO HAVE COMMUNITY MEETINGS.

ALL ARE ELIGIBLE TO HAVE COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND HAVE YOU ALL COME OUT AND TALK THROUGH SOME OF THESE MAPS AND ANY OTHER CHANGES.

TRUSTEES ALSO WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO SIT DOWN WITH YOU AND GIVE YOU MORE GRANULAR DETAIL THAT THEY HEAR AS WE GO FORWARD AND SEE THE NEXT ITERATION OF THIS PROCESS.

I THINK SOME GREAT POINTS ARE RAISED, ESPECIALLY AROUND GETTING ON A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE MEAN BY SOME OF THESE THINGS LIKE RETROGRESSION AND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? THAT'S SOMETHING WE'LL DEFINITELY TO WORK THROUGH THIS NEXT CYCLE BEFORE WE COME BACK HERE IN NOVEMBER AND HAVE ANOTHER CONVERSATION.

WITH THAT, THE TIME IS NOW 4:20 AND THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.