[1. Notice and Return]
[00:00:02]
TRUSTEE, THE TIME IS 2:33 P.M..
GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE CALLED BOARD MEETING OF THE DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
WE WILL DISPENSE WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND A SALUTE TO THE TEXAS FLAG AS WE DID THAT IN OUR PREVIOUS MEETING.
THE FOLLOWING TRUSTEES ARE EITHER PHYSICALLY PRESENT OR PARTICIPATING SIMULTANEOUSLY VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE. A QUORUM OF THE BOARD IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT AT THIS LOCATION.
DISTRICT ONE [INAUDIBLE] IN DISTRICT NINE, JUSTIN HENRY.
OUR SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS MICHAEL HINOJOSA JOINS US [INAUDIBLE] BOARD PRESENT.
THIS MEETING WILL BE AVAILABLE SIMULTANEOUSLY IN SPANISH ON SOCIAL MEDIA FOR DALLAS ISD IN ESPAÑOL ON FACEBOOK AND THROUGH THE DISTRICT WEBSITE.
ALL RIGHT, TRUSTEES, WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN WITH ITEM THREE CLOSED SESSION.
[3. CLOSED SESSION - The Board will retire to closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551 concerning the following sections:]
SO THE BOARD WILL NOW RETIRED A CLOSED SESSION.THE PUBLIC AND THE STAFF ARE WELCOME TO STAY CONNECTED TO ZOOM OR WAIT IN THIS ROOM WHILE THE BOARD LEAVES THE MEETING TO ATTEND CLOSED SESSION.
THE BOARD RETIRED A CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551 CONCERNING ANY AND ALL PURPOSES PERMITTED BY THE ACT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 551.071 FOR PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH ITS ATTORNEY ABOUT PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION ON A MATTER IN WHICH THIS DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES, THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER, INCLUDING LEGAL MATTERS RELATED TO REDISTRICTING.
THE TIME IS 2:35 P.M AND WE ARE IN CLOSED SESSION.
THE TIME IS 3:45 PM AND WE ARE BACK IN OPEN SESSION.
THE BOARD TOOK NO ACTION WHILE IN CLOSED SESSION, WE ARE NOW GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM
[4. Discussion Item]
FOUR, DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED MAPS.SO I'M GOING TO ASK OUR REDISTRICTING TEAM TO KIND OF SHARE.
LAST TIME WE MET, THERE WERE THREE PROPOSED MAPS THAT WERE DEVELOPED BY THE DEMOGRAPHER AND REDISTRICTING TEAM.
THIS COMPILATION IS MAPS SUBMITTED BY TRUSTEES BASED ON COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FOR JUST CONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD AND THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO HEAR OUR ENTIRE BOARD THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS AND WHAT THEY WISH TO SEE TO HOPEFULLY GIVE OUR REDISTRICTING TEAM FEEDBACK ON HOW TO PROCEED IN TERMS OF DRAWING ONE TO TWO MAPS THAT ARE AMENABLE TO TRUSTEES AS WE COME DOWN TO THE NOVEMBER 16TH CALLED MEETING.
SO I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE REDISTRICTING TEAM TO BRIEFLY GIVE AN OVERVIEW AND WALK THROUGH THE PRESENTATION, AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR TRUSTEE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.
WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND JUST GIVE A GENERAL OVERVIEW AS TO EACH OF THESE MAPS SO AS TO ALLOW SOME FRUITFUL CONVERSATION FROM THE TRUSTEES AND INPUT AND FEEDBACK THAT WE CAN TAKE BACK WITH US.
SO I SUPPOSE, DO WE HAVE OUR POWERPOINT UP ON THE--[INAUDIBLE].
OH, OK. SO, DO I HAVE CONTROL OF THAT? NO, HE'S GOT TO DO IT ON HIS END.
OK, SO WE WON'T BELABOR IT, BUT THIS IS JUST THE CURRENT MAP OF THE DISTRICT TRUSTEES SMDS . I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRAINTS OF PDF, WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF THIS IS NOT AS DETAILED AS MAPS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE BOARD SEPARATELY FOR ACCESS. SO THE STREET LEVELS ARE NOT AS DETAILED AS WE WOULD PREFER, BUT AT LEAST GIVES AN IDEA. IMPORTANT THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST IN TERMS OF OUR STATISTICAL DATA AND THE DEMOGRAPHICS WITH REGARD TO OUR POPULATIONS FROM 2010 AS WELL AS FROM 2020, WHICH IS THE BENCHMARK THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND JUST MOVE FORWARD.
ROCKY WILL SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE GENERAL CHANGES IN THAT PLAN AND WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE. THINGS TO NOTE: WE ARE LOOKING AT A NINE POINT SIX PERCENT DIFFERENTIAL, SO IT DOES GET US BELOW THE 10 PERCENT DEVIATION LINE.
HERE, ULTIMATELY, SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT NINE WOULD BE YOUR LARGEST DISTRICT BY POPULATION, FOLLOWED BY A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT ONE AS THE SMALLEST IN POPULATION AND SO
[00:05:05]
FOR PURPOSES OF A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE CHANGES MADE, I'M GOING TO HAVE ROCKY EXPLAIN SOME OF THOSE CHANGES.MOST OF THESE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME SLIGHT CHANGES FROM DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE SAW SOME MOVES FROM DISTRICT ONE TO DISTRICT EIGHT? I THINK THE BIGGEST THINGS WE MIGHT LOOK AT HERE IS THAT A LOT OF WEST DALLAS GOES TO SEVEN TO INCREASE SEVEN POPULATION.
YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO REMOVE POPULATION FROM DISTRICT FIVE.
SO DISTRICT FIVE MOVED SOME POPULATION INTO NINE AND AS WELL AS INTO SIX; THAT'S THE MOST GENERAL CHANGES WITH PLANS A AND ACTUALLY, PLAN B.
ONE THING THAT WE WOULD POINT OUT AGAIN, WHEN THE TRUSTEES ARE LOOKING AT THESE MAPS TO THINK ABOUT THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTORS THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED AT THE BOARD HAS ADOPTED WITH REGARDS TO THIS PROCESS AND SO FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PARTICULAR MAP, WE DO HAVE ONE OF THOSE FACTORS IMPLICATED IN THAT WE DO HAVE A LINE THAT APPEARS TO BE DRAWN IN A MANNER THAT HAS SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT FOUR TRUSTEE OUTSIDE OF HER DISTRICT.
UNDER THIS ITERATION OF A TRUSTEE PLAN.
PLAN B, AGAIN, WE HAVE A PLAN THAT DOES GET US BELOW THE 10 PERCENT DEVIATION LINE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT A NINE POINT AT AN EIGHT POINT SEVEN DEVIATION HERE.
SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT FOUR IS THE LARGEST AND SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT SIX IS THE SMALLEST BY POPULATION.
YEAH, I THINK THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN I THINK THAT WE CAN BETWEEN PLAN A AND PLAN B IS WHERE WEST DALLAS IS IN EIGHT IN PLAN B AND IT'S IN SEVEN IN PLAN A..
IT ALSO HAS THE SAME CHANGES OVER BETWEEN.
WE HAD A TRUSTEE THAT APPEARS TO BE DRAWN OUT OF THEIR DISTRICT, THAT'S SIMILAR ON PLANS A AND B AS FAR AS BIG CHANGES THAT YOU GUYS WERE REFERRING TO SOME OF SOME CHANGES FROM FROM TRUSTEE DISTRICT TWO TO EIGHT, WHERE WE PICKED UP SOME POPULATION THERE ALONG THE EDGE OF A LITTLE BIT FROM ONE TO EIGHT AS WELL.
AGAIN, IT'S BIG MOVES ARE GOING TO BE IN FIVE BECAUSE FIVE IS THE TRUSTEE THAT WE NEED TO LOWER THE MOST. THANK YOU, ROCKY.
PLAN C. THIS PLAN BRINGS US BELOW THE DEVIATION TO NINE POINT ONE PERCENT DEVIATION.
OUR LARGEST AND SMALLEST SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS CONTINUE TO BE THE SAME AS WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH NOW.
UNDER THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES, SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT FIVE IS THE LARGEST AND WILL CONTINUE. SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT SEVEN CONTINUES TO BE THE SMALLEST.
IN TERMS OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, ROCKY, I'LL GO AHEAD AND HAVE YOU EXPLAIN? YEP, WITH C, YOU SEE SOME MORE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES BETWEEN ONE AND TWO.
SOME CHANGES UP THERE ON THE NORTH SIDE AND ALSO BETWEEN FIVE AND SIX, THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
7'S A LITTLE SPREAD OUT AND IT RUNS ALONG THE DESIGN DISTRICT THERE AND THEN YOU SEE WHERE EIGHT DIPS DOWN INTO SEVEN AS WELL ON THIS ONE.
THOSE ARE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES.
FOR PURPOSES OF THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTORS OF THE BOARD, ALL SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT TRUSTEES ARE ABLE TO WE CONTINUE TO PRESERVE TRUSTEE CONSTITUENCY INCUMBENCY WITH THIS PARTICULAR MAP ITERATION AND WHILE YOU PROBABLY CAN, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WITH BOUNDARIES WITH REGARDS TO OUR SOUTHERN SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS.
SO ONE THING TO WEIGH WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT CONSIDERATION OF TRYING TO PRESERVE CURRENT BOUNDARIES TO THE EXTENT AS POSSIBLE.
PLAN D, THIS IS A PLAN THAT I BELIEVE IS THE PLAN THAT GIVES US THE SMALLEST IN TERMS OF A DEVIATION AT EIGHT PERCENT UNDER THIS PARTICULAR PLAN ITERATION, YOU WOULD HAVE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT FOUR BEING THE LARGEST BY POPULATION, WITH SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT SIX BEING THE SMALLEST BY POPULATION.
UNDER THIS PLAN, UNDER PLAN D FOR PURPOSES OF OUR CRITERION AND FACTORS, THIS PLAN DOES, HOWEVER, RUN CONTRA TO THAT PROVISION AGAIN OF PRESERVING TRUSTEE AND CONSTITUENCY
[00:10:03]
INCUMBENCY IN THAT WE HAVE TO SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT TRUSTEES WHO ARE IMPACTED UNDER THE REDRAWN LINES IN THIS MAP ITERATION, SPECIFICALLY SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT FOUR AND SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT NINE.TURN IT OVER TO ROCKY FOR SOME GENERAL EXPLANATION ON THIS ONE.
YEP, THOSE ARE TWO OF THE BIGGEST CHANGES.
IN THIS ONE, WE DO HAVE WEST DALLAS GOING TO SEVEN.
THAT SEEMS TO BE THE AREA THAT MOVES THE MOST.
AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO RELIEVE POPULATION FROM FIVE.
WE ALSO SAW THAT DISTRICT EIGHT MOVES INTO THE NORTHERN PART OF FIVE A LITTLE BIT IN THIS PLAN AS WELL. PICKED UP SOME POPULATION THERE AND ALSO DISTRICT NINE MOVED INTO DISTRICT FIVE TO PULL SOME POPULATION OUT.
UM, AGAIN, PROBABLY AN ARGUABLE POINT, BUT IN CONSIDERING THE FACTOR OF MAINTAINING OUR PRESERVING THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES TO THE FULLEST EXTENT IS POSSIBLE, I THINK THIS PLAN DOES TRY TO DO THAT.
HOWEVER, THERE IS A PUSH AND PULL WITH REGARDS TO THOSE PARTICULAR SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT TRUSTEES THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THEIR BOUNDARIES, RIDING THEM OUT OF THEIR DISTRICT.
UNDER THIS MAP ITERATION, WE HAVE A DEVIATION THAT FALLS BELOW THE 10 PERCENT AT EIGHT POINT THREE PERCENT.
HERE, THE SMALLEST DISTRICT WOULD BE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT FIVE AND THE LARGEST WOULD BE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT TWO.
I THINK YOU SEE HERE THAT YOU SEE WE'VE PULLED SOME POPULATION FROM NINE INTO DISTRICT THREE IN THIS ZONE AND THAT OPENED UP OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE SOME MORE POPULATION FROM FIVE INTO NINE.
WE ALSO USED, YOU KNOW, WE MOVED SOME OF THE REST OF FIVE.
WE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF WEST DALLAS SPLIT BETWEEN DISTRICT EIGHT THERE AND THEN YOU SEE DISTRICT SEVEN STRETCHES INTO THE DESIGN DISTRICT AND THEN ALSO THEN DISTRICT SIX GOES DOWN AND GRABS A LITTLE BIT--NOT QUITE AS MUCH AS IN THE PREVIOUS PLAN, BUT A SIMILAR SECTION--IN THE SOUTHERN PART, WITH DISTRICT NINE THEN REACHING IN AS WELL AND THEN WE DID HAVE A LITTLE A LITTLE BIT BIT BIGGER PIECE OF ONE THAT GOES DOWN INTO DISTRICT TWO TO RELIEVE DISTRICT 2'S POPULATION--KEEP IN MIND, I HAVEN'T MENTIONED THAT--BUT WE DID HAVE TO BRING DISTRICT 2'S POPULATION DOWN AS WELL BY ABOUT 10000.
SO, PRESIDENT MACKEY, BOARD MEMBERS, WE ARE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE IMPACT ON EACH DISTRICT BY SMD IN COMPARISON IN COMPARING EACH OF THE PLANS.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH THAT OR IF THE BOARD WOULD JUST LIKE TO DISCUSS THAT IMPACT AND THE AND THE ANALYSIS.
I THINK WE CAN OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH IT SIDE BY SIDE, WE CAN, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYONE NOTATING THAT.
SO I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO AT THIS POINT, IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY OTHER SUMMARY, COMMENTS OR WHATNOT, AND THEN WE'LL OPEN UP FRO TRUSTEE QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT, TRUSTEES, OPENING UP FOR TRUSTEE QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
WE'LL START WITH TRUSTEE MARSHALL.
THANK YOU. SO THANKS FOR INCORPORATING THE TRUSTEE FEEDBACK INTO THE PROCESS.
I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE ABLE TO SUBMIT SOME MAPS HERE AND IN SOME CASES BUILD UP ONE ANOTHER'S SUGGESTIONS THROUGH THE DEMOGRAPHER.
JUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS PREVIOUSLY, BUT MAPS A, B AND D DRAW TRUSTEES OUT OF THEIR OWN DISTRICT.
THAT'S CORRECT, TRUSTEE MARSHALL AND WE AGREED IN THE PROCESS THAT WOULD BE A CRITERIA THAT WE WOULDN'T VIOLATE.
YEAH, THERE WAS A CRITERIA OF PRESERVING INCUMBENCY AND CONSTITUENCY RELATIONSHIPS.
YES, SIR. SO I MEAN, I HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE MAPS, BUT SORT OF FOR ME FROM A SORT OF PRIMA-FACIE PERSPECTIVE, THOSE MAPS ARE NONSTARTERS AND SHOULD BE COMPLETELY IGNORED BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE CRITERIA THAT WE AGREED WOULD NOT BE VIOLATED.
SO I PERSONALLY INTEND TO REJECT ALL OF THOSE OUT OF HAND, BUT I DO WANT TO JUST MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON THOSE IN CASE FOLKS FEEL DIFFERENTLY.
ON MAPS A AND B, AND I'M GOING TO LOCALIZE MY QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS TO THE TO DISTRICT TWO AND THE SURROUNDING DISTRICTS, JUST BECAUSE THAT'S THE PARTS OF TOWN THAT I'M MOST FAMILIAR WITH AND IT'S WHERE I'VE HEARD FEEDBACK FROM MY CONSTITUENCY AND IN COMMUNITY MEETINGS. BUT MAPS A AND B HAVE A SMALL SLIVER ON THE WEST SIDE OF MY DISTRICT THAT IS
[00:15:01]
DRAWN INTO DISTRICT EIGHT.CAN YOU PULL THOSE UP ON THE SCREEN? SLIDES FOUR OR SIX, THEY'RE THE SAME.
THEN WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET YOU THE MORE DETAILED MAP.
YEAH, SO THAT GREEN PART, THAT'S TO THE LEFT, YEAH, RIGHT THERE, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS. I THINK IT'S ELM THICKET.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE OBJECTIVE WHEN WE'RE DRAWING THESE MAPS IS TO RETAIN THREE OPPORTUNITY, HISPANIC DISTRICTS AND THREE OPPORTUNITY AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICTS, DISTRICT EIGHT IS A OPPORTUNITY HISPANIC DISTRICT.
CORRECT. YEP, THAT IS CORRECT.
AND SO WHEN WE DRAW THESE MAPS, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAINTAIN AND/OR INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE THAT ARE HISPANIC IN DISTRICT EIGHT.
CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT ELM THICKET THAT'S BEEN DRAWN INTO DISTRICT EIGHT ON THIS MAP? I'LL SAVE YOU THE TIME AND HASSLE.
THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS PREDOMINANTLY AFRICAN-AMERICAN.
IT'S PERPLEXING TO ME WHY WE WOULD TAKE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS ADJACENT TO AN OPPORTUNITY HISPANIC DISTRICT AND DRAW IN ADDITIONAL AFRICAN-AMERICAN PEOPLE INTENTIONALLY BECAUSE THAT IS ACTUALLY UNDERMINING THE VOTING AGE POPULATION PERCENTAGE THAT'S HISPANIC WITHIN THAT DISTRICT. SO ON MAPS A AND B, I STRUGGLE WITH THAT.
I HAVE A QUESTION ON MAPS C AS WELL.
WELL, LET ME ASK ONE QUESTION THAT'S NOT RELATED TO DISTRICT TWO.
IS DISTRICT FIVE CONTIGUOUS IN THIS MAP ON C? PLAN C.
THAT PART THAT'S IN WEST DALLAS IS CONNECTED.
I KNOW THERE'S A ROAD THERE, BECAUSE IT LOOKS ON THE MAP LIKE IT'S NOT LIKE FIVE AND EIGHT, CUT OFF.
I MEAN, WHEN WE WERE DOING THESE MAPS, WE YEAH, IT IS, CONNECTED.
THESE CENSUS BLOCKS [INAUDIBLE] ARE VERY, VERY SMALL AND YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE CONNECTED IF [INAUDIBLE] FREEWAY CONNECTOR THERE.
I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK. SO IF YOU SCROLL TO THE RIGHT OF WHERE YOU ARE RIGHT NOW ON THE DISTRICT TWO PORTION OF THIS MAP, THIS IS PLAN C, RIGHT? YEP. OK. IS THAT LITTLE GREEN PART THAT WENT OUT OF DISTRICT TWO INTO DISTRICT EIGHT IS THAT WHERE NORTH DALLAS HIGH SCHOOL IS? IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S RIGHT DOWN HERE.
OK, AND THE STAR THAT'S JUST TO THE NORTH OF THAT IS, I BELIEVE, BEN MILAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. WHICH IN THIS VERSION OF THE MAP, WHICH I LIKE, BY THE WAY, THIS VERSION OF THE MAP WOULD LEAVE ONLY ONE SCHOOL THAT'S PART OF THE NORTH DALLAS FEEDER PATTERN OUTSIDE OF DISTRICT EIGHT, AND IT IS THAT LITTLE TINY STAR RIGHT THERE ON THE TOP OF THE GREEN SECTION. SO IF WE COULD LITERALLY ADD ONE BLOCK TO DISTRICT EIGHT IN THIS MAP, IT WOULD GIVE TRUSTEE CARREÓN THE ENTIRE NORTH DALLAS FEEDER PATTERN.
SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE MAKE THAT ONE SMALL CHANGE TO THIS MAP, WHICH I DOUBT WILL HAVE ANY REAL IMPACT ON YOUR NUMBERS BECAUSE IT'S LITERALLY ONE BLOCK.
BUT IT WOULD MAKE SURE THAT FEEDER PATTERN IS IN DISTRICT EIGHT, WHICH I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THAT CHANGE. AND I WOULD IMAGINE, TRUSTEE CARREÓN WOULDN'T HAVE AN OBJECTION.
I'M LOOKING AT HIM TO CONFIRM, BUT IT'S ONE BLOCK, SO IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE YOUR VOTING PERCENTAGES MUCH, I DON'T THINK.
OK, THE OTHER THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I GUESS I HAVE IS ON MAP D.
I DIDN'T NOTICE THIS WHEN LOOKING AT IT EARLIER, BUT THERE APPEARS TO BE A SMALL PORTION
[00:20:03]
OF THE NORTHERN PART OF MY DISTRICT.IF YOU SCROLL UP FROM THERE, THAT IS CURRENTLY PART OF DISTRICT TWO, BUT WAS DRAWN INTO DISTRICT ONE IN THIS MAP.
SEE THAT LITTLE YELLOW THING THAT COMES DOWN.
OK. I THINK I MAY HAVE ANSWERED MY OWN QUESTIONS BECAUSE I SEE THE STARS ON YOUR MAP THERE. I'M NOT SURE WHO SUBMITTED THIS OR WHY IT WAS DONE THAT WAY, BUT I WAS GUESSING THAT YELLOW CAME DOWN TO TRY TO TAKE HILLCREST HIGH SCHOOL AND FRANKLIN, WHICH ARE THOSE TWO DOTS AND PUT THEM IN DISTRICT ONE.
BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT ACTUALLY DOES MOVE THE SCHOOLS, SO I'M EVEN MORE PERPLEXED WHY WE WOULD TAKE THAT ONE LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD OUT OF DISTRICT TWO IF IT DIDN'T MOVE THE SCHOOLS. BUT MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE, DID IT MOVE THE SCHOOLS AND IT LOOKS LIKE ON THAT MAP, IT DOES NOT.
SO THAT ANSWERS MY OWN QUESTION, AND THAT'S ALL I GOT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, TRUSTEE MARSHALL.
TRUSTEE FOREMAN. SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT ALL OF THE MAPS, IT LOOKS LIKE TRUSTEE DISTRICT FOUR IS ON THE LINE ON ALL OF THOSE MAPS, SO IF I LOOK AT A IT'S ON THE LINE, IF I LOOK AT B, IT'S ON THE LINE.
IF I LOOK AT C, SAME ITERATION.
IF I LOOK AT E, SAME GENERATION.
ALMOST ALL OF THEM, IT'S VIRTUALLY THAT LINE IS DRAWN IN THE SAME PLACE.
SO I CAN'T SEE HOW ON SOME MAPS IT WOULD BE INSIDE AND OTHER MAPS IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE.
BUT NEEDLESS TO SAY, THAT IS A CRITERIA THAT WE HAD AGREED ON.
SO NO TRUSTEE SHOULD BE DRAWN OUT OF THEIR DISTRICT AND I DO NOT BELIEVE ANYONE INTENTIONALLY DID THAT.
WITH THAT SAID, I WANT TO GO BACK AND JUST LOOK AT PLAN A AND I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THE UM, TRYING TO HAVE THREE OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS FOR HISPANICS AND THREE FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS.
IF YOU LOOK AT DISTRICT THREE, IT ACTUALLY HAS FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND HISPANICS DISTRICT FOUR, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT'S BEEN IN QUESTION OF DRAWING SOMEONE ELSE. NINETY TWO THOUSAND HISPANICS AND DISTRICT EIGHT HAS UM, SIXTY NINE THOUSAND HISPANICS, SO THERE ARE THREE HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS IN THAT MAP.
THEN WHEN I LOOK AT THE AFRICAN-AMERICANS DISTRICT FIVE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY AT ABOUT ALMOST 50000 AFRICAN-AMERICANS, IS DOWN TO 48--NO, I'M WRONG, DISTRICT SIX IS ABOUT 50000. SO YOU HAVE DISTRICT SIX AT FIFTY FOUR AND DISTRICT NINE AT FIFTY SIX THOUSAND.
SO, ON PLAN A, THOSE OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS ARE STILL THERE.
AM I CORRECT OR AM I JUST READING THAT WRONG? OR IT APPEARS BECAUSE WE CAN'T SAY THEY'RE THERE; IT APPEARS THAT THEY'RE THERE.
IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT, OR AM I WRONG? TRUSTEE FOREMAN, I THINK LOOKING BY TOTAL POPULATION, THE NUMBERS, YES, THEY ARE RELATIVELY HIGH.
AGAIN, PART OF OUR ANALYSIS IS ALSO TO LOOK AT VOTING, AGE POPULATION AND CVAP AS FACTORS AND SO LOOKING AT THOSE POPULATIONS, YOU DO HAVE MAJORITY POPULATION OF VOTING AGE POPULATION FOR HISPANICS IN THREE OF THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS.
OK, AND THEN WHEN WE GET TO THE VOTING AGE POPULATION, WE HAVE CVAP ON HERE TOO.
BUT THE VOTING AGE POPULATION, IF YOU LOOK AT DISTRICT FOUR, IS SIXTY SEVEN PERCENT.
DISTRICT SEVEN IS 70 PERCENT AND DISTRICT EIGHT IS 52 PERCENT.
AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY OR NOT?
[00:25:02]
THAT'S ON PLAN A.SO THEN WHEN I LOOK AT PLAN B AND LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT THE VOTING AGE POPULATION JUST FOR EXPEDIENCY.
FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS, WE ACTUALLY DROP IN TERMS OF OUR PERCENTAGES, BUT THERE WOULD BE OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS FOR DISTRICT FIVE IT'S FORTY THREE PERCENT, DISTRICT SIX IS FORTY EIGHT PERCENT AND DISTRICT NINE IS FORTY THREE PERCENT BASED ON THE MAP THAT WAS DRAWN.
SO WHEN I LOOK AT PLAN C, IT LOOKS LIKE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGE AND I'M TALKING ABOUT VOTING AGE POPULATION, IN DISTRICT FIVE WENT DOWN TO THIRTY NINE PERCENT.
DISTRICT SIX AT 52 PERCENT AND DISTRICT NINE IS AT 38 PERCENT, SO I REALLY WOULDN'T CALL THAT AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT.
PLAN D, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO GO THROUGH IT PRETTY QUICKLY.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT PLAN D HISPANICS, SIXTY FIVE PERCENT IN FOUR, THIS IS VOTING AGE POPULATION. 70 PERCENT IN SEVEN AND WELL, IT'S ACTUALLY 40 PERCENT IN THREE ALSO AND 53 PERCENT IN EIGHT.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE VOTING AGE POPULATION FOR BLACKS, FORTY FOUR PERCENT AND FIVE FORTY NINE PERCENT IN SIX AND THIRTY NINE PERCENT IN --ONE OF THE THINGS THAT AND I'LL GO ON TO E, SO I WON'T MISS ANY OF THEM.
IF YOU LOOK AT E FOR HISPANICS IN DISTRICT FOUR, SIXTY FOUR PERCENT, THIS IS VOTING AGE POPULATION. DISTRICT SEVEN.
DISTRICT EIGHT, FIFTY SIX PERCENT.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE VOTING AGE POPULATION IN THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS, DISTRICT FIVE FORTY ONE PERCENT, DISTRICT SIX, 50 PERCENT AND DISTRICT NINE THIRTY SEVEN PERCENT AND SO, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, I HOPE THAT IF WE ARE USING A RULE OF THUMB FOR ONE POPULATION, WE SHOULD BE USING THE SAME RULE OF THUMB FOR ALL POPULATIONS AND JUST TO TRUSTEE MARSHALL'S POINT ABOUT ELM THICKET, THAT IS A GROWINGLY HISPANIC AREA.
IT IS TRADITIONALLY AFRICAN-AMERICAN, BUT IT'S GROWING IN HISPANIC POPULATION, JUST LIKE IN MOST OF OUR COMMUNITIES.
THEY'RE GROWING IN HISPANIC POPULATION; I KNOW THE AREA VERY WELL.
UH, SO I DON'T SEE THE PUSHBACK ON ELM THICKET BEING IN A DISTRICT THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY HISPANIC. THANK YOU.
TRUSTEE JOHNSON, DID YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON BEFORE? OK. TRUSTEE CARREÓN.
IS MS. MCBRIDE STILL ON? NO, SHE HAD TO LEAVE FOR ANOTHER MEETING.
WELL, THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. TRUSTEE FOREMAN KIND OF JUST SPOKE TO VOTING AGE POPULATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOMEONE WHO COULD SPEAK TO BOTH THE IMPORTANCE OF VOTING AGE POPULATION, BUT ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION.
I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT, TRUSTEE CARREÓN IF YOU--EVERYONE CAN HEAR ME OKAY? YEAH.
OK, YES, WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT PLANS AND THE IMPACT OF CHANGES TO BOUNDARIES, WE LOOK AT
[00:30:06]
TOTAL POPULATION FOR PURPOSES OF BALANCING THE TOTAL POPULATION AMONG THE DISTRICTS.BUT IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT VOTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR VARIOUS DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS, WE DO LOOK AT VOTING AGE POPULATION AND WE LOOK AT CITIZEN VOTING, AGE POPULATION AND THE REASON WE DO THOSE THINGS IS BECAUSE WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS, WE REALLY ARE TALKING ABOUT VOTERS.
AND SO IT MATTERS TO LOOK AT WHAT THE ACTUAL OPPORTUNITY IS FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE IN THOSE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS AND WHEN WE LOOK FURTHER AT CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION, IT MATTERS NOT JUST WHO'S OF VOTING AGE, BUT WHO ACTUALLY CAN VOTE.
SO WE LOOK AT TOTAL POPULATION AND WE LOOK AT VOTING AGE POPULATION AND WE LOOK AT CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION SO WE CAN GET A FULL PICTURE, NOT JUST OF THE POPULATION OF THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT, THE ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE IN IT, BUT ACTUALLY WHO MIGHT VOTE AND WHAT THE TRUE IMPACT OF OUR CHANGES MIGHT BE AND THAT'S WHY WE REALLY CAN'T EXCLUDE ANY ONE SOURCE OF DATA.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION, IT IS IMPORTANT, PARTICULARLY FOR OUR HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS, BECAUSE WE DO SEE SUCH A DISPARITY IN VOTING AGE POPULATION AND CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION.
SO IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE TRULY DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH.
THANK YOU FOR THAT AND WHEN YOU SAY WE LOOK AT THAT, YOU MEAN THE FEDERAL COURT TO LOOK AT THAT WHEN ANALYZING SECTION TWO VOTING RIGHTS ACT VIOLATIONS? CORRECT. CORRECT.
OUR LEGAL TEAM LOOKS AT IT WHEN WE'RE ADVISING YOU ON THESE VARIOUS OPTIONS AND VARIOUS CHANGES THAT YOU MIGHT MAKE AND THEN STATISTICALLY AS WELL, WE WILL BE LOOKING TO ANALYZE THE IMPACT OF VARIOUS CHANGES.
SO THEN I GUESS I'LL TAKE US THROUGH A JOURNEY OF THE PLANS AS WELL. PLAN A, WE HAVE A CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION IN DISTRICT EIGHT HISPANIC CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION OF TWENTY NINE POINT SEVEN PERCENT.
IS THAT RIGHT? OF CITIZEN VOTING AGE POP, YES.
AND I GUESS WE SHOULD KNOW IN TWENTY TEN WHAT CLASSIFIED DISTRICT AS A HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT WAS A CITIZEN HISPANIC VOTING AGE POPULATION OF FORTY SIX POINT SEVEN PERCENT. YES, SIR.
SO PLAN A, THAT'S DOWN TO TWENTY NINE POINT SEVEN PERCENT.
THEN IN PLAN B, IT IS GAVE. CAN I? I'M REALLY STRUGGLING AND WE KEEP SAYING OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT, AND WE'RE USING A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS. I'M SORRY, WE'RE USING A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
TRUSTEE CARREÓN JUST SAID THAT CVAP WAS USED TO DETERMINE DISTRICT EIGHT AS AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT IN 2010.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S TRUE? NO, SIR, TRUSTEE HENRY, I WAS CONFIRMING WHAT THE PERCENTAGE OF CVAP WAS IN 2010 FOR THE HISPANIC POPULATION IN SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT EIGHT.
WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION TRUSTEE CARREÓN.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WAS MY QUESTION.
WHAT I WAS CONFIRMING WAS THE FACT OF THE PERCENTAGE OF THE CVAP IN 2010 FOR THE HISPANIC POPULATION IN SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT EIGHT, THAT POPULATION, THE CVAP POPULATION WAS IN THE 40 PERCENTILE.
BUT YOUR QUESTION SAID SOMETHING ABOUT OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS.
OK, SO, THE DISTRICT EIGHT IN 2010 WAS CONSIDERED HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT.
BASED ON PERCENTAGES AS WELL AS THE ELECTION HISTORY, WE CAN GLEAN THAT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT AT THAT POINT.
OK, SO POINT BEING IS THAT IN 2010 WITH A FORTY SIX POINT SEVEN PERCENT CITIZEN HISPANIC VOTING AGE POPULATION IN ITS HISTORY, DISTRICT EIGHT WAS DEEMED A HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT. BE CAREFUL BECAUSE I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP.
OK, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY HAVE ELECTED A HISPANIC CANDIDATE FORM THAT DISTRICT HISTORICALLY, THEN THAT WOULD MAKE IT AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT FOR HISPANICS.
HE'S ASKING YOU, I THINK, A VERY CLEAR QUESTION, AND I THINK WE'RE GETTING A VERY CLEAR ANSWER, AND I'M ONLY ASKING TRUSTEE MACKEY BECAUSE WE KEEP SAYING OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT TRUSTEE MARSHALL USED IT AS WELL, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT HOW SOMETHING'S DETERMINED
[00:35:01]
AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT AND THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION IF CVAP IS WHAT DETERMINES MY DISTRICT AS A BLACK OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT.THEN WE NEED TO KNOW HOW AND WHY.
WAS IT A FEDERAL CASE OR SOMETHING? BUT WE CAN'T GLEAN OR DEEM BASED ON JUST A FEELING BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING A WHOLE DISCUSSION AROUND THAT. ALL RIGHT, THE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I'LL ASK AND TRUSTEE CARREÓN, YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOUR TIME TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS.
WHAT DO WE NEED TO CONSIDER WHEN WE SAY OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT? WHAT FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED IN THAT? AND THEN WE'LL RETURN THE TIME TO TRUSTEE CARREON.
THERE ARE SUCH THINGS AS HAVING OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS, IN FACT, VERSUS WHAT IS ON PAPER AND I THINK, BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, IS THE BEST WAY I CAN THINK.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT SEVEN, ON PAPER, THAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT. JUST GIVEN THE FACT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE MINORITIES IN THAT DISTRICT ARE THE MAJORITY IN THAT DISTRICT BY CVAP AS WELL AS BY VAP? SO BY ALL INDICATIONS, AT LEAST ON PAPER, IT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT.
HOWEVER, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE ELECTION HISTORY, PARTICULARLY FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, THAT IS NOT WHAT HAS PLAYED OUT IN TERMS OF OF THE HISTORY.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT YOU CAN HAVE, IN FACT, VERSUS WHAT'S ON PAPER. SO SMD SEVEN WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD PLAY OUT AS WHAT IS ON PAPER, AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT, JUST NOT.
IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT EIGHT, WE LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGES OF VAP AND CVAP FOR THE REASONS THAT MS. BADILLO JUST SPOKE TO, PARTICULARLY WITH THE HISPANIC POPULATION.
CVAP IS IMPORTANT AND COURTS DO LOOK AT THAT MORE AND MORE SO AS WE PROGRESS THROUGH THE CASE LAW WHEN IT COMES TO A HISPANIC POPULATION AND SO WHEN WE COUPLE THE PERCENTAGES OF MINORITY, THOSE PERCENTAGES NEARING MAJORITY OR IN THE 40 PERCENTILE, COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A HISTORY OF ELECTING A HISPANIC FROM A PARTICULAR DISTRICT, I THINK THAT IN PRACTICE OR IN REALITY, YOU COULD SAY THAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT.
THANK YOU. OK, WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND RESTART TRUSTEE CARREÓN, YOU'VE GOT ABOUT FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU AND SO PLAN B HISPANIC CVAP IS THIRTY SIX POINT FOUR PERCENT . IS THAT RIGHT? DID I LOOK AT THE RIGHT THING? SOMEBODY CONFIRM.
YES, FOR THE CVAP IN THAT DISTRICT UNDER PLAN B FOR HISPANICS, YES.
AND PLAN C IS FORTY TWO POINT TWO DISTRICT EIGHT.
PLAN D THIRTY ONE POINT FIVE, HISPANIC CVAP IN DISTRICT EIGHT.
YES. E THIRTY FOUR POINT FIVE HISPANIC CVAP AND DISTRICT EIGHT.
YES. SO THE ONLY PLAN THAT HAS A HISPANIC CVAP OVER 40 PERCENT IS PLAN C.
IS THAT RIGHT? THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.
OKAY, WELL, I'LL JUST SAY, I MEAN, I APPRECIATE EVERYONE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT TRUSTEE FEEDBACK, BUT THE ONLY PLAN THAT I COULD POTENTIALLY SUPPORT IS ONE THAT CAN SURVIVE BOTH THE FEDERAL ANALYSIS BUT THEN TAKING TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALSO A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS THAT IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO BE 50 PERCENT HISPANIC CVAP. BUT WHEN YOU COUPLE IT WITH BOTH THE HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS THAT YOU CAN DEEM THE DISTRICT HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I CAN, I CAN SUPPORT THEM. AND FROM MY ASSESSMENT, I CAN OF THESE MAPS.
I CAN'T IMAGINE ANY OTHER MAP EVEN STANDING STANDING, YOU KNOW, ANY TYPE OF SHOT OTHER THAN PLAN C AND EVEN THAT, I THINK IT'S I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN UPHILL CLIMB.
I'LL ALSO JUST SAY ON THE ELM THICKET COMMUNITY.
I'M A NORTHWEST DALLAS KID ALL THE WAY.
BORN AND RAISED, KNOW ELM THICKET REALLY WELL, STRONG COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP OVER THERE.
MR. MAPLES AND COMPANY FEEDS INTO THE TJ FEEDER PATTERN.
VERY, VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE COMMUNITY.
HISTORICALLY, AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY.
UNFORTUNATELY, THOUGH, IT'S NOT GETTING MORE LATINO.
IT'S ACTUALLY GENTRIFYING AND BECOMING YOUNGER AND WHITER PROFESSIONALS OVER THERE.
PEOPLE'S HOMES ARE BEING DEMOLISHED AND BIG HOMES ARE BEING BUILT THERE AND SO I'LL JUST ADD THAT TO THE RECORD.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU, TRUSTEE CARREÓN.
[00:40:02]
TRUSTEE HENRY. SO I HATE TO KEEP REVISITING THE CVAP.I FEEL LIKE WE'RE BEATING IT TO DEATH FOR CONVENIENCE.
WE'VE HAD A DISCUSSION IN CLOSED SESSION.
WE'VE HAD AN OPEN SESSION ABOUT CVAP AND THAT I WISH WE COULD JUST FOCUS ON THE REQUIREMENTS WE SET FORTH WHEN WE BEGAN THIS PROCESS I FEEL LIKE WE'RE MEANDERING AWAY FROM THE PURPOSE. WE JUST HAD THIS CONVERSATION ON CVAP AND VAP AND USING OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS, SO IS THERE A HARD NUMBER FOR AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT? BLACK, BROWN, WHITE? I DON'T THINK YOU COULD SAY THAT THERE IS A HARD NUMBER AS WELL.
AND I HATE TO GIVE YOU THESE KIND OF QUALIFIED ANSWERS TRUSTEE HENRY BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE LOOK AT CASES AND I KNOW THAT MANY ON THE BOARD, IF NOT ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH THE RETROGRESSION ANALYSIS, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT ANALYSIS. IT IS A MULTIFACTOR ANALYSIS, AND I THINK THAT IT'S A QUESTION TO SAY WHETHER SOMETHING IS AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT VERSUS WHETHER OR NOT A REDISTRICTING ACTION IS DILUTING A VOTE.
THEY'RE SAME SIDES OF A COIN, I THINK, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE SAME ANALYSIS.
SO WHAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THERE IS THAT YOU SAID THERE'S MANY FACTORS THAT WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE'RE EVALUATING THIS.
CORRECT? WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT RETROGRESSION, VOTER DILUTION, THAT IS A MULTIFACTOR ANALYSIS. SO, NEITHER VAP NOR CVAP OR ANY OTHER VAP IS GOING TO BE A LINEAR CONNECTION BETWEEN WHETHER YOU'RE ABLE TO MAKE A CASE OR NOT.
THAT IS INFORMATION OR FACTORS THAT ARE PART OF THE ANALYSIS, BUT NOT THE ENTIRETY--LET'S TALK ABOUT [INAUDIBLE].
SO RETROGRESSION WE TALK ABOUT THESE FEDERAL CASES, ARE THEY NOT USING CVAP ANALYSIS WHEN THEY'RE DRAWING NEW DISTRICTS? OR IS IT WHEN THEY'RE DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING? WHEN IS CVAP USED ON THE BACK END.
SO I THINK AND MY COLLEAGUES MAY JUMP IN ON THIS ONE BECAUSE OF THE CASES THAT WE HAVE A HANDFUL OF CRITICAL CASES THAT WE LOOK AT FOR THOSE THINGS.
BUT IF WE'RE REDRAWING, I THINK, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT LOOK FROM COURTS THAN WHEN WE ARE GOING FROM AN AT LARGE SYSTEM TO A NEW SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT SYSTEM.
WHY IS THAT? WELL, BECAUSE IF I'M A PLAINTIFF THAT BELIEVES THAT WE NEED A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT SYSTEM BECAUSE NO CANDIDATE OF CHOICE FOR THIS MINORITY GROUP HAS BEEN ELECTED AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS WHOLE, THE MAJORITY IS THE MINORITY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THEY HAVE TO PROVE IS THAT THERE IS A CONCENTRATED MINORITY POPULATION IN A PARTICULAR AREA SUCH THAT WE CAN GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINE IT.
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AMENDING MAPS FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND [INAUDIBLE] HAVE TO GO BACK IN THERE, THOSE CASES AREN'T TALKING ABOUT SEE CVAP BECAUSE THERE YOU HAVE HISTORICAL INFORMATION. IF I LOOK AT MY DISTRICT NINE, I CAN GO BACK FOR DECADES AND SEE WHO'S VOTED WHO THEY VOTED FOR GENERALLY AND THAT HISTORICAL INFORMATION INFORMS WHETHER A NEW MAP IS ALLOWING THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE TO LET THE OFFICIAL OF THEIR CHOICE OR NOT.
YOU GAVE A PRIME EXAMPLE EARLIER WITH TRUSTEE MACKEY.
TRUSTEE MACKEY'S DISTRICT THAT HE REPRESENTS IS THE HIGHEST.
HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DEFINE IT, I'VE HEARD IT DEFINED DIFFERENT WAYS OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT IN DALLAS, YET IT HASN'T ELECTED THE SAME WAY.
SO THERE IS HISTORICAL INFORMATION THERE, AND I THINK WE KEEP GOING BACK WITH THE CVAP AND THE VAP AND I GET IT AND MAYBE THE POLITICAL SIDE OF IT.
BUT I JUST WANT TO COME TO SOMETHING SO WE CAN REACH A MAP THAT WE ALL CAN AGREE UPON AND I THINK WE MUDDY THE WATERS WHEN WE KEEP THROWING THE STUFF OUT THERE LIKE THAT AND THAT WAS MY POINT THE FIRST TIME WE HAD THIS MEETING.
WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE CLOSED SESSIONS AND NOW WE'RE BACK AT IT AGAIN, AND THAT'S WITHOUT EVEN GETTING--I'M JUST ON MY SOAPBOX NOW--TO THE UNRELIABLE NATURE, MR. ROCKEY, OF CVAP. HOW WAS CVAP EVEN CREATED? I WANT TO GO BACK TO MY NOTES AND QUOTE THE WORD YOU USED.
CVAP IS DEVELOPED BY USING 2015-19 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA THAT THE SMALLEST GEOGRAPHY IS AVAILABLE.
YOU KNOW, THE DOJ ORDERS IT FROM THE CENSUS BUREAU AT THE BLOCK GROUP LEVEL.
SO WHAT PERCENTAGE ROUGHLY THE POPULATION EVEN GETS THAT SURVEY? TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT THE NUMBER IS--MORE THAN FIVE PERCENT? I'M SORRY? MORE THAN FIVE PERCENT? IT'S IN THAT RANGE, NOT MUCH MORE.
THAT'S WHY THEY DO IT FIVE YEARS.
THERE'S A ONE, THREE AND FIVE YEAR SURVEY, BUT THE FIVE YEAR SURVEY IS WHAT'S USED FOR THE
[00:45:06]
BEST ACCURACY. AND I GUESS I'M TALKING TO MY COLLEAGUES RIGHT NOW; I DON'T KNOW WHY WE KEEP HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.IT'S BECOMING FRUSTRATING TO ME AS I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE END OF THIS, BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT ALONE, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE MAPS AVOID LEGAL CHALLENGES, I THINK.
I'VE LOOKED AT SOME OF THE MAPS NOT AS MUCH AS I SHOULD, BUT WE HAVE SOME ISSUES IN THESE MAPS WHERE THERE'S REALLY EASY OPPORTUNITIES TO MOVE POPULATIONS TO BENEFIT OUR ENDGAME THAT I THOUGHT WE INITIALLY AGREED UPON.
THERE ARE LATINO COMMUNITIES THAT CAN MOVE INTO DISTRICTS THAT NEED LATINO COMMUNITIES.
[INAUDIBLE] THERE'S AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BE MOVED INTO AND I CAN GO ON AND ON, AND THERE'S SOME WHITE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE BEING ADDED TO SOME COMMUNITIES THAT AGAIN HAVE NEVER ELECTED THE OFFICIAL OF THEIR CHOICE.
SO I'M HOPING THAT WE GET BACK FOCUSED ON OUR PURPOSE SO WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS INSTEAD OF KIND OF MEANDERING AROUND WHAT I'M FEELING IS BECOMING VERY MUCH A DISTRACTION TO WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING, AND I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR THIS FIRST ROUND.
I KNOW PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT, C A LOT, BUT NOW YOU'RE STARTING GETTING, I THINK I LIKE C, I HAVE TO LOOK AT THESE MORE.
BUT IN DISTRICT NINE, THE DISTRICT THAT I REPRESENT, IT HAS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF BLACK POPULATION AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DISCUSSION LOOKS LIKE, NOW DO I NEED TO START TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER I PULL IN MORE BLACK PEOPLE AND SHOULD I USE VAP VERSUS CVAP? BECAUSE VAP DOESN'T BENEFIT BLACK COMMUNITIES.
YOU SAID IT EARLIER DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS LATINO COMMUNITIES, WHICH MAKES SENSE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF UNDOCUMENTED OR NONCITIZEN LATINOS IN OUR COMMUNITY, SO IT MAKES SENSE.
BUT NOW WE START MAKING ARGUMENTS THE OTHER WAY, AND IT BECOMES REALLY INCREDIBLY MESSY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND THAT'S THE STANCE I'M MAKING TO MY COLLEAGUES.
IT'S AN EASIER WAY TO DO THIS THAN I THINK APPROACH WERE TAKEN RIGHT NOW, AND I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU, TRUSTEE HENRY.
THANK YOU, I'M GOING TO TRY TO WORK THIS AS BEST AS I CAN.
WHEN I LOOK AT THAT MAP C I SAID FROM THE BEGINNING, I'M NOT GOING TO BE BULLIED.
THAT'S WHAT I SEE. SOUTH OAK CLIFF, PART OF THAT IS GONE.
WILMER HUTCHINS, PART OF THAT IS GONE AND THEN YOU JUST TOOK ONE [INAUDIBLE] NORTH.
WHEN WE FIRST CAME, [INAUDIBLE] NORTH WAS DISCUSSED BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM ME BEFORE WE EVEN STARTED DOING REDISTRICTING ALONG WITH WEST DALLAS.
SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE FUTURE OF THIS BOARD, WHETHER I'M HERE OR NOT HERE, I DON'T PLAN TO BE HERE 10 YEARS, TO SERVE 18 YEARS LIKE MY PREDECESSORS.
BUT TRUSTEE FLORES IS HISPANIC, BUT HIS DISTRICT IS PREDOMINANTLY WHITE.
SO IF HE'S NOT SITTING IN THAT SEAT, POSSIBLY A WHITE PERSON IS GOING TO BE SITTING IN THAT SEAT. SO WHEN I LOOK AT THAT IN THE FUTURE, YOU HAVE DAN MICCICHE WHO'S A GREAT WHITE GUY. YOU HAVE MY FRIEND, BROTHER DUSTIN MARSHALL, WHO'S A GREAT WHITE GUY.
YOU HAVE BEN MACKEY WHO'S A GREAT WHITE GUY.
MY BROTHER OVER HERE IS NOT GOING TO BE HERE.
I DON'T THINK HE'S GOING TO BE HERE ANOTHER 18 YEARS DOING THE SAME THING.
SO NO ONE IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE HIM AND THAT SEAT.
SO IF NO ONE IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE HIM IN THAT SEAT, THEN WE HAVE FOUR WHITE SEATS NOW, WHICH DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF US SAYING WE WANT THREE THREE THREE.
SO THIS VOTE WILL NOT BE EQUITABLE IF WE LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE FUTURE.
SO FOUR WHITE GUYS OR FOUR WHITE SEATS WITH WHAT TO BLACKS AND MAYBE TWO MORE SOMEWHERE LIKE THAT, IF I DO THE MATH, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE EQUITABLE AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT I'M HAVING. AS TRUSTEE HENRY HAS POINTED OUT, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THE HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT IS DISTRICT SEVEN, WE ARE IGNORING THAT.
BUT YET AND STILL, HE HAS KESSLER PARK.
HE HAS STEVENS PARK AND IF YOU TAKE WENTWOOD NORTH FROM DISTRICT 5 AND GIVE IT TO HIM THAT LOOK LIKE PACKING TO ME.
NOW I'M JUST GOING TO PUT IT OUT THERE AND I'VE SAID THIS PRIVATELY, AND I'M TRYING NOT TO BE FRUSTRATED, BUT YOU'RE TAKING VOTES FROM MAXIE JOHNSON.
YOU TOOK SOUTH OAK CLIFF, EVERYBODY KNOWS SOUTH OAK CLIFF WITH TRUSTEE MAXIE JOHNSON.
LIKE, ARE YOU ASKING ME LIKE, I'M TRYING TO BE QUIET AND LISTEN TO MY COLLEAGUES RESPECTFULLY, BUT I CAN'T, BECAUSE IT APPEARS SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT, LIKE SOMEONE IS SILENTLY TRYING TO GET RID OF MY VOICE.
THEN I HAVE AN ISSUE WHEN I'M LOOKING AT DOWN YEARS FROM NOW WILL THIS BOARD STILL BE THREE THREE THREE? WITH C, IT WON'T.
[00:50:01]
NOW, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, I'M THE ONE THAT HAD TO GIVE UP THE MOST.IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK I'VE BEEN MORE THAN FAIR.
I DID MY BEST TO MAKE SURE THAT TRUSTEE JOE HAS WHAT HE NEEDED.
I'VE DONE THAT. BUT WHAT I'M NOT GOING TO DO IS SIT BACK AND BE QUIET WHILE I BE BULLIED OVER AND IT'S BEEN SAID THAT I'M GOING TO BE BULLIED OVER IT.
IT'S NOT FAIR. NO OTHER TRUSTEE IS GOING TO BE BULLIED, BUT I FEEL LIKE I'M BEING BULLIED WHEN I'M LOOKING AT C MY VOTES ARE GONE.
THE WORK THAT I'VE DONE IN THIS COMMUNITY, I DON'T SEE IT.
THAT'S A PROBLEM. SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS AT ALL.
SO I WOULD LOVE AND THEN I'M BEING CONFUSED, MY COMMUNITY IS ASKING ME, ARE WE GOING BY CVAP OR ARE WE GOING BY VAP? I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE, ARE WE GOING DOWN THE STREET, UP THE HILL? WHICH DIRECTION ARE WE GOING? BECAUSE I'M LISTENING TO TRUSTEE JOE, I FEEL HIM.
I UNDERSTAND I SUPPORT WHAT HE'S SAYING.
THEN I LISTEN TO TRUSTEE MARSHALL, WHO'S TRIED TO GIVE AID, HE'S BEEN IGNORED WHEN HE'S TRYING TO HELP TRUSTEE JOE.
BUT WHAT I'M NOT CONFUSED ABOUT IS BEING BULLIED.
THAT'S WHAT I'M NOT CONFUSED ABOUT AND BLACK VOTES HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM ME.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE SAW IN THE NUMBERS, BUT I KNOW WHERE MY VOTE IS.
I JUST RAN FOR CITY COUNCIL NOT TOO LONG AGO.
BELIEVE ME, I KNOW WHERE MY VOTERS ARE.
I WALKED OVER A THOUSAND DOORS, I DID, SO I KNOW WHERE MY VOTERS ARE.
DISTRICT 5 IS NOT GOING TO BE BULLIED, AND I ASK EVERY TRUSTEE MY COLLEAGUES TO RESPECT ME. DON'T DO THAT.
THIS WOULD NOT BE A THREE THREE THREE BOARD, AS TRUSTEE MARSHALL HAS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN HAVE SAID, NOT JUST PUBLICLY BUT IN CLOSED SESSION.
HE HAS PREACHED EQUITY AND I WANT TO PUBLICLY SAY THAT.
THIS DOES NOT SELL EQUITY IN THE FUTURE, SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS AND WHOEVER SITS IN THIS SEAT AFTER ME, THIS IS GOING TO BE HARD.
I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS AND GET RID OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY IN PARTS OF DISTRICT 5 THAT I SEE IS NO LONGER THERE.
SO THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE MAP, AND I'LL WAIT FOR ROUND TWO.
ANYONE ELSE FOR ROUND ONE? TRUSTEE FLORES.
OH, SORRY, TRUSTEE MICCICHE HAD HIS HAND UP AND THEN TRUSTEE FLORES.
TRUSTEE MICCICHE. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. UM, WELL, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS AND A FEW COMMENTS.
FIRST, I WANT TO THANK THE REDISTRICTING TEAM.
I KNOW THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS FOR THEM BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFICULT PROCESS FOR US AND WE ARE A PRETTY CHALLENGING CLIENT TO SATISFY WITH ALL OF OUR DIFFERENT INTERESTS AND THOUGHTS ON THIS.
YOU KNOW, FOR ME, I'M IN A SITUATION WHERE I'VE LIVED IN THE TWO DISTINCT PARTS OF MY DISTRICT FOR A COMBINED TOTAL OF ALMOST 30 YEARS.
SO MY GOALS ARE TO KEEP THOSE VERY DISTINCT COMMUNITIES INSIDE MY DISTRICT AND THEN TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES THAT WE ALL AGREED ON AND THE GUIDELINES THAT WE AGREED ON, I THOUGHT WERE WERE VERY, VERY FAIR AND REASONABLE AND OBJECTIVE, THEY LOOK BETTER IN THEORY MAYBE THAN THEY ARE IN PRACTICE, AND WE HAVE TO TRY TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THEM.
BUT I KEEP COMING BACK TO THOSE GUIDELINES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO WHEN WE WEREN'T SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT PARTICULAR MAPS AT THE TIME, SO I'M GOING TO KEEP PUSHING US BACK TOWARDS WHETHER THESE MAPS MEET OUR GUIDELINES OR DON'T MEET OUR GUIDELINES. UM, AND THERE HAVE BEEN SOME COMMENTS ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE
[00:55:02]
GOING TO GET SUED. WELL, WE CAN'T CONTROL, WHETHER OR NOT WE GET SUED.I MEAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY TRY TO GET A MAP THAT AND WE HAVE TO DO THIS WE HAVE TO TRY TO GET A MAP THAT IS DEFENSIBLE AND MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW BUT IN TERMS OF JUST GETTING SUED, WELL, WE CAN GET SUED ALL THE TIME FOR ANYTHING BUT WE'VE SEEN THAT WITH SOME OF THE SOME OF THE MASK ISSUES YOU CAN GET SUED BUT WHETHER THE SUIT HAS MERITED OR NOT IS SOMETHING ELSE.
UM, YOU KNOW, FROM THE PRIOR MEETING, THERE WAS SOME QUESTION AND THIS DOES AFFECT DISTRICT FOUR, BUT I'M NOT PICKING ON DISTRICT FOUR, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THOSE PLANS A, B AND D, WHICH DRAW TRUSTEE GARCIA OUT OF HER DISTRICT COULD EASILY BE TWEAKED TO PUT HER RIGHT BACK IN THE DISTRICT AND MAKE THOSE PLANS, PLANS THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AGAIN AND I THINK TRUSTEE HENRY IS IN THE SAME SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO D THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THOSE PLANS ENTIRELY OFF THE TABLE JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A MINOR TWEAK THAT WASN'T MADE THAT COULD BE MADE.
SO I'D LIKE TO FOR THE NEXT MEETING HAVE THOSE PLANS A, B AND D RE-TWEAKED SO THAT WE GET THE INCUMBENTS BACK IN THERE IN THOSE DISTRICTS, AS WE HAVE STATED AS ONE OF OUR PRINCIPLES IN THE GUIDELINES, RATHER THAN JUST THROW THE MAPS OUT ENTIRELY. THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY TO DEAL WITH TRYING TO COME UP WITH A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE. UM, AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO DISTRICT FOUR, I THINK TRUSTEE CARREÓN HAD MADE A COMMENT IN THE LAST BRIEFING THAT WAS POTENTIALLY A A REGRESSION ISSUE.
I THINK AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THERE'S NOT A REGRESSION ISSUE AT ALL IN DISTRICT FOUR BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION DISTRICT FOUR HAS A GREATER HISPANIC A CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION THAN IT THAN IT DID IN 2010 UNDER ALL OF THESE ALTERNATIVES, IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT TRUSTEE.
OK, SO WE CAN TAKE THAT PARTICULAR CONCERN OFF THE TABLE . LIKE TRUSTEE HENRY, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT GOING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN CVAP AND VOTING AGE POPULATION AND THOUGH I VERY MUCH HEAR THE CONCERN OF TRUSTEE CARREÓN, I THINK I'M JUST GETTING GETTING A LITTLE BIT DIZZY, GOING BACK AND FORTH, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE FOCUSED ON AND I'M SO CERTAINLY AMENABLE TO TRYING TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN THAT WE KEEP DISTRICT EIGHT A HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT. UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SAW ON MAP C IS THAT IT ADDS A PORTION OF DISTRICT TWO TO DISTRICT THREE.
THAT IS SORT OF THAT IS REALLY UNCONNECTED WITH ANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE ALREADY IN DISTRICT THREE AND THAT IS ALSO ZONED TO A DIFFERENT FEEDER PATTERN.
AGAIN, IN GOING AGAINST ONE OF OUR MAIN PRINCIPLES OF TRYING TO KEEP FEEDER PATTERNS TOGETHER, I DON'T THINK ANY ONE FACTOR IS GOING TO BE DISPOSITIVE.
BUT I DID FIND THAT ONE TO BE A FACTOR THAT DOES GO AGAINST IT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE MAPS TWEAKED TO DEAL WITH THE OBVIOUS PROBLEMS . IN MAPS ONE, TWO AND THREE, ARE THEY STILL ON THE TABLE FOR US FOR CONSIDERATION? THERE IS NOTHING OFF THE TABLE, SO WE SAW THREE MAPS FROM THE REDISTRICTING.
[01:00:03]
THERE WAS FEEDBACK TRUSTEES TOOK THAT CONVERSATION, SUBMITTED THEIR OWN MAPS, SO WE HAVE SEEN EIGHT VARIATIONS OF MAPS AT THIS POINT.I WOULD PROVIDE WHAT THE ASK IS HERE IS FOR PEOPLE TO PROVIDE THEIR FEEDBACK ON THESE MAPS OR ANY OTHER MAPS OR CHANGES.
AND WHAT THE TEAM IS GOING TO DO BASED ON THIS FEEDBACK IS DISTILL OUT ONE TO TWO MAPS THAT TRY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE MAJORITY OF POSSIBLE FEEDBACK TO BRING BACK TO US ON NOVEMBER 16TH AND THEN WE START CONTINUE TO ADJUST THAT MAP.
OK, SO JUST THE ORIGINAL PLANS ONE, TWO AND THREE ARE EQUALLY ON THE TABLE WITH A THROUGH E HERE.
RIGHT? IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE DISCARDED ONE, TWO AND THREE, AND NOW WE'VE NARROWED IT DOWN TO A THROUGH E.
WE HAVE ALL EIGHT MAPS ON THE TABLE.
CORRECT, AND THE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THIS TO THE REDISTRICTING TEAM.
SO YEAH, MY VIEW IS AND I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DIGEST ALL OF THE FEEDBACK THAT I'M HEARING FROM MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS.
I MEAN, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO KEEP DISTRICT THREE INTACT AT THE SAME TIME, ACCOMMODATING THE CONCERNS THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE RAISED.
I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT RELATES TO CVAP, AND THAT IS IF YOU LOOK AT IT REALLY ANY OF OUR DISTRICTS AND WE TAKE THE SNAPSHOT IN 2020, WHAT IS IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE IN 2024? WELL, WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT.
RIGHT, BECAUSE IF WE IN 2024, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF CHILDREN BECOME ADULTS IN THE CVAP IS GOING TO CHANGE, AND IT COULD CHANGE VERY, VERY CONSIDERABLY.
I DON'T I HAVEN'T DONE ANY OF THE MATH, BUT I COULD SEE THAT IF YOU HAVE A 70 PERCENT HISPANIC POPULATION TODAY THAT A GREAT NUMBER OF THE KIDS ARE GOING TO BE CITIZENS WHO CAN VOTE AND I HOPE WILL VOTE WHEN THEY BECOME 18.
SO, DO WE LOOK AT ONLY 2020 OR CAN WE PROJECT IN A COUPLE OF YEARS THAT THE POPULATION IS GOING TO SHIFT? AND IN SOME OF THESE CASES, THE POPULATION WILL SHIFT BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.
SO, IS CVAP A CONSIDERATION THAT YOU LOOK AT ONE POINT IN TIME AND 2020 AND YOU DON'T TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE IN 2023.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, SIR, THAT WE ONLY CAN USE THE 2020 DATA FOR DOING THIS REDISTRICTING MODEL, SO NO OTHER NEW DATA CAN BE BROUGHT IN AT A LATER DATE.
THE ATTORNEYS CAN VERIFY THAT.
SO IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION FOR PURPOSES OF THE REDISTRICTING BASED ON 2020 CENSUS DATA FOR THIS PROCESS, TO THE EXTENT THAT CVAP IS IS OBVIOUSLY PART OF THE MIX, THAT CVAP IS BASED ON A SURVEY REPORT THAT COVERED 2015-19 . SO WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED A NEW SURVEY THAT COMES AFTER THAT TIME PERIOD.
AND SO WHEN WE HAVE TO REDISTRICT AGAIN, IF THE DISTRICT HAS TO REDISTRICT AGAIN, WHICH I THINK WE ALL ASSUME IT WOULD IN TEN YEARS, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT SURVEY FOR CVAP THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AT THAT TIME.
OKAY. I THINK THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
ALTHOUGH IN THEORY, IF 100 PERCENT OF THE KIDS WERE 16 YEARS OLD TODAY IN TWO YEARS, THEY WOULD BE 18 YEARS OLD, AND THAT WOULDN'T AFFECT ANY OF OUR ANALYSIS FOR THIS REDISTRICTING. TRUSTEE MICCICHE, WE'RE AT TIME, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE AROUND AND COME BACK TO SECOND ROUND.
TRUSTEE FLORES. THANK YOU, PRESIDENT MACKEY.
SO, I'M JUST GOING TO PUT IT OUT THERE A, B AND D, I THINK, WERE PRESENTED IN BAD FAITH
[01:05:07]
AND I THINK THAT THEY CUT OUT TRUSTEE GARCIA AND THEN ALSO TRUSTEE HENRY IN BAD FAITH AND I DON'T EVEN WANT TO LOOK AT THEM AND I WANT TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, AND I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO LOOK AT THEM ANYMORE.PERIOD. I'M JUST GOING TO PUT IT OUT THERE.
I DON'T CARE TO LOOK AT THEM AGAIN.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS VAP/CVAP, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GETTING AN EQUAL UNDERSTANDING ON THIS.
THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THIS AND I'VE DONE THIS TWICE BEFORE, SO THIS IS ROUND THREE FOR REDISTRICTING FOR ME.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ANGLO VOTING AGE POPULATION.
FROM THE TABLE TO HERE, YOU HAVE THIS MANY ANGLOS AND OF THOSE VOTING AGE POPULATION IS UP HERE, CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION, RIGHT? SO THE VAP AND THE CVAP TRACK VERY CLOSELY.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT IS CORRECT.
WE LOOK AT AFRICAN-AMERICANS, WE HAVE VAP AND THEN WE LOOK AT CVAP, AND AGAIN, THEY TRACK VERY CLOSELY.
OK. HISPANICS, HOWEVER, ARE DIFFERENT THAT WE HAVE THIS MANY HISPANICS.
WE DON'T HAVE THIS MANY CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION.
YES OR NO? AS IT RELATES TO DALLAS ISD, BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, YES, SIR.
YES, WITHIN DALLAS, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMEWHERE ELSE; I'M TALKING ABOUT IN DALLAS, TEXAS, WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF DALLAS ISD.
WHEN YOU HAVE THIS MANY VOTING AGE POPULATION, HISPANICS, YOU ONLY HAVE THIS MANY CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION.
THAT MEANS VOTERS MEANS ACTUAL VOTERS, RIGHT? BECAUSE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT CITIZENS FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE DON'T CARE. SO IT IS POSSIBLE TO BOTH HAVE IN YOUR MIND THE FACT THAT FOR ONE POPULATION, I'LL JUST SAY ANGLOS, YOU VOTING AGE POPULATION IS IN ESSENCE, YOUR CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION, SO IT MAKES SENSE THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT THAT NUMBER VAP OR CVAP, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY'RE VERY CLOSELY CORRELATED.
SAME THING WITH AFRICAN-AMERICANS, BUT FOR HISPANICS, THAT'S NOT THE CASE FOR HISPANICS.
YOU DO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SECOND NUMBER AND THAT'S FOR HISPANICS, THE IMPORTANT NUMBER, WHEREAS FOR ANGLOS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S NOT THE IMPORTANT NUMBER BECAUSE IT'S VERY CLOSELY CORRELATED BETWEEN VAP AND CVAP, RIGHT, IF YOU ARE AN ANGLO.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF YOU ARE CITIZENS AND MAYBE YOU HAVE A VERY SMALL PERCENT OF FOLKS THAT ARE NOT CITIZENS.
THEY'RE RESIDENTS, THEY'RE FOREIGN, THEY'RE FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE, THEY'RE TRYING TO BECOME CITIZENS. BUT WITH HISPANICS, IT MAKES A REALLY BIG DIFFERENCE.
BECAUSE IT'S, WHAT, 50 PERCENT OR SO.
I MEAN, WE KEEP ON TALKING ABOUT THAT, AND IF YOU LOOK AT OUR NUMBERS, THAT IS THE CASE.
SO FOR A HISPANIC, WHAT MATTERS IS CVAP, WHEREAS FOR ANGLOS, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE YOUR CVAP AND YOUR VAP ARE THE SAME.
BUT FOR US, IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
NOW TALK ABOUT THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
WHEN FOLKS ASKED TO HAVE THE CITIZENSHIP QUESTION TAKEN OFF THE CENSUS, WE USED TO HAVE A CITIZENSHIP QUESTION ON THE CENSUS AND IT GOT TAKEN AWAY IN 2010.
AND THEN FOR 2020, THEY WANTED TO PUT IT THEY ENDED UP NOT PUTTING IT.
SO THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER AND WE HAVE TO RELY ON STATISTICS BECAUSE THAT GOT WITHDRAWN FROM THE CENSUS HAD WE HAD THAT NUMBER, WE WOULDN'T BE CONCERNED ABOUT A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD THAT TELLS US, YOU KNOW WHAT THE CVAP IS OR ISN'T, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT AND AGAIN, IT'S THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
I BET YOU, THE FOLKS THAT ADVOCATED FOR REMOVING THE CITIZENSHIP QUESTION WOULD NOT HAVE FIGURED OUT THAT 10 YEARS LATER, PEOPLE WOULD BE SAYING THAT NUMBER IS UNRELIABLE BECAUSE IT'S JUST A SURVEY AND THAT IS THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF TAKING THAT QUESTION OUT.
BUT THE FACT IS THAT PEOPLE WHO DO THIS FOR A LIVING, THEY HAVE PHDS AND STATISTICS THAT WORK AT THE CENSUS THAT HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR DECADES SAY THAT WITH A CERTAIN LEVEL OF CERTAINTY. WE CAN SURVEY, AND BASED ON THAT SURVEY, WE CAN CALCULATE WITHIN THE BLOCKS, WHATEVER YOU FOLKS CALL IT.
THAT OF THIS MANY VOTING AGE POPULATION, HISPANIC.
THIS MANY ARE CITIZEN VOTING, AGE POPULATION, HISPANICS.
IS THAT TRUE OR IS THE CENSUS BUREAU FULL OF A BUNCH OF IDIOTS?
[01:10:04]
OR ARE THESE LIKE THE PHDS AND THE SMARTEST PEOPLE IN THE CENSUS WORLD? WELL, I DON'T WANT TO SIT HERE AND DISPARAGE THE CENSUS BUREAU, BUT I THINK THAT TO THE EXTENT OF HOW THAT PERCENTAGE IS CALCULATED, I KNOW THAT MR. GARDNER CAN SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT, I THINK YOU'RE HINTING TO IT, IT'S NOT A DIRECT ONE ON ONE CORRELATION.RIGHT, BECAUSE THE QUESTION GOT TAKEN OUT.
BUT GIVEN THAT'S A FACT AND WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT AND WE CAN'T GO BACK AND REDO THE CENSUS, ALL WE CAN DO IS RELY ON WHICH THE PHDS THAT THE CENSUS TELLS US IS THE BEST APPROXIMATION THAT THEY CAN COME UP WITH, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING THE QUESTION AND SO THE SMART PEOPLE AT THE CENSUS AND THE GOOD PEOPLE AT THE CENSUS IN GOOD FAITH HAVE TRIED TO CALCULATE THIS NUMBER USING THE SURVEY.
CORRECT? SO THEREFORE, I PERSONALLY AM NOT ONE TO DISPARAGE THIS NUMBER FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT REALLY SMART PEOPLE HAVE LOOKED AT IT.
THEY WERE TAKEN AWAY THE TOOL THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN US THE ANSWER.
IT'S NOT BEING ASKED, THEREFORE, WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT TO THE BEST APPROXIMATION THAT PHD STATISTICIANS CAN COME UP WITH.
THEY GIVE US THIS CRAP AND WE CAN WALK INTO COURT WITH THE CVAP, CAN'T WE? WE CAN WALK INTO A COURT AND TELL THE COURT WHETHER IT'S THE FIRST TIME YOU'RE DRAWING MAPS OR WHETHER IT'S REDISTRICTING, JUDGE, WE CAN RELY ON THE CVAP NUMBER.
YES OR NO? WE CAN RELY ON A NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN CALCULATED BASED ON THE SURVEY REPORTS.
WE CAN TAKE THAT INTO COURT? MM HMM. THE COURT IS GOING TO SAY YES, I THINK THAT THIS IS RIGHT.
ACCEPTING WHETHER OR NOT IT GETS CHALLENGED SOMEHOW IN ANY LITIGATION, BUT MANY TIMES WHEN YOU HAVE VOTING RIGHTS ACT LITIGATION, YOU DO HAVE CONTENTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE DATA IS CORRECT.
ASSUMING, THOUGH, THAT THE COURT WOULD BE ACCEPTING OF WHATEVER THAT DATA IS THAT'S BEING PRESENTED, THEY WILL USE THAT AS PART OF THE ANALYSIS THAT I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.
I GET IT. THE CENSUS IS A GOVERNMENT RECORD AND WE CAN WALK INTO COURT AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS THE NUMBER AT THE BLOCK LEVEL THAT THE CENSUS SAYS IS THE BEST POSSIBLE APPROXIMATION WE CAN USE, GIVEN THE QUESTION GOT TAKEN AWAY FROM US FOR WHAT THE HISPANICS CVAP IS IN A CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD, THE BLOCKS, WHATEVER YOU GUYS CALL THESE THINGS.
YOU THINK YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN. YEAH, WELL, I MEAN IT ACTUALLY WHEN IT'S RELEASE, IT'S RELEASED TO THE BLOCK GROUP LEVEL.
IT GETS DISAGGREGATED THROUGH ANOTHER.
BUT YES, THE CENSUS BUREAU, IT'S A SURVEY THAT'S BEEN STATISTICALLY--IT'S A STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY. IT'S A STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY THAT I CAN STATISTICALLY VALIDATE GET WITHOUT ASKING THE QUESTION.
THAT'S CORRECT. MARGINS OF ERROR.
RIGHT, THERE'S SOME MARGIN OF ERROR AND SO THAT'S WHY FOR HISPANICS, THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT NUMBER. I MEAN, THIS NUMBER MATTERS TO US.
PEOPLE HAVE FOUGHT OVER THIS QUESTION.
I MEAN, I PERSONALLY WOULD HAVE HAD THE CITIZEN QUESTION.
WHY? BECAUSE THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE THIS DISPUTE ABOUT WHETHER IT'S A STATISTICS OR NOT A STATISTIC, BUT WE DON'T HAVE IT.
AND THAT'S MY ONLY POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE ON THIS IS THAT I THINK THAT FOR DIFFERENT POPULATIONS, FOR HISPANICS, CVAP IS THE NUMBER THAT MATTERS.
HOWEVER, IT'S ARRIVED AT. YOU KNOW, IF YOU SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, THE VAP IN THE HISPANIC POPULATION, THE 67 PERCENT, WHAT ARE YOU GUYS COMPLAINING ABOUT? IT'S LIKE, WELL, THE COMPLAINT IS THAT ONLY HALF OF THOSE ARE CITIZENS.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CLOSE TO THE 50 PERCENT, THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU CREATE NEW DISTRICTS, WHAT DO YOU USE? YOU USE 50 PERCENT CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION.
WHY? BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY MEASURE THAT YOU CAN RELY ON, AND WE WOULD WALK IN WITH THE STATISTICS ANYWAY.
BECAUSE WE DON'T ASK THE QUESTION.
AGAIN, THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
I THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE WORK YOU'RE DOING.
I KNOW THAT THIS IS REALLY, REALLY TOUGH.
I THINK THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS OF DRAWING THREE HISPANIC MINORITY OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS, WHERE AT LEAST DISTRICT EIGHT GETS OVER 40 SOME ODD PERCENT AND CLOSER TO 45 OR MORE IS BETTER.
I THINK THAT'S THE GOAL WE NEED TO BE WORKING ON.
WE NEED TO BE WORKING ON, YOU KNOW, TRUSTEE JOHNSON AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HE REPRESENTS SOUTH OAK CLIFF STAYS IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND AT THE SAME
[01:15:02]
TIME, YOU KNOW, SOME DISTRICTS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LOSE.AND SO I THINK TRUSTEES NEED TO WORK TOGETHER IN THOSE AREAS.
DISTRICT ONE IS LIKE AND I THROW MYSELF OUT THERE TO MEDIATE BECAUSE DISTRICT ONE IS KIND OF AT THE OPPOSITE END OF WHERE ALL THE ACTION IS AND I'LL BE, OH, I'LL BE GLAD TO STOP BECAUSE MY TIME IS OVER. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. TRUSTEE FLORES TRUSTEE GARCIA.
I THINK MY ONLY COMMENT HERE IS THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE AT THE BEGINNING ABOUT STICKING TO THE COLLECTIVE CRITERIA THAT WE MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, I THINK PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THIS MOST AFFECTS ME, OF COURSE, IS PRESERVING OUR INCUMBENCY AND TRUSTEE RELATIONS. I THINK EVERYBODY AT THIS TABLE UNDERSTANDS EXACTLY WHY THAT'S SO IMPORTANT.
I'M FOLLOWING ALONG WITH THE CONVERSATION, BUT AT THE END OF THIS CONVERSATION, I REALLY, REALLY WOULD. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE OF ESSENCE THAT WE WALK AWAY WITH IT SOUND UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE HAD SINCE I THINK OUR FIRST CONVERSATION AROUND REDISTRICTING, WHICH IS WHAT'S THE LINCHPIN? AND I, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING BACK AND FORTH IN DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS HERE AND DIFFERENT THINGS. SO I'M ACTIVELY LISTENING, BUT JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I THINK MY COLLEAGUES SUPPORT THE FACT THAT WE SHOULD PRESERVE OUR INCUMBENCY TRUSTEE RELATIONS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. TRUSTEE GARCIA, I'LL GET A COUPLE JUST NOTES HERE, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO SECOND ROUND. SO FIRST OF ALL, AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR WORK.
I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE BEEN THROUGH A LOT OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS, A LOT OF MEETINGS WITH US OVER THESE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, AND WE DEFINITELY HAVE MORE AHEAD AND THANKS TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR THIS SUPER MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION WHEN WE COME TO LOOKING AT THESE MAPS AND THE ONES WE SAW LAST TIME, I DO TEND TO AGREE WITH JUSTIN ON THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DIVING INTO THESE LITTLE SPECIFIC AREAS MAKES IT MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT HAS TO BE. YOU KNOW, I KEEP HEARING US TALK ABOUT, IS IT VAP OR IS IT CVAP? THE ANSWER THAT I'VE HEARD OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN HAS BEEN THE SAME IS THAT BOTH MATTER. IT'S NOT AN OR CONVERSATION AND WHAT I'VE ALSO HEARD FROM ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES IS THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT TRYING NOT TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT AND HAVE RETROGRESSION, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR DISCUSSION TOPICS, WHICH IS GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION. IT'S NOT THE ONLY ONE, BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE AND SO WHEN I LOOK AT THESE MAPS JUST ON THEIR FACE, I MEAN, 80 PERCENT OF THESE MAPS IN SCREEN TO SCREEN TO SCREEN ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME.
THERE'S 20 PERCENT THAT IS CHANGING ABOUT.
I THINK THERE'S SOME VERY VALID CONVERSATIONS THERE.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE FOUNDATION IS HERE TO MOVE FORWARD ON.
WHEN I LOOK AT THESE AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT RETROGRESSION, I'M GOING TO LOOK AT BOTH VOTING AGE POPULATION AND CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION LOOKING AT BOTH.
YOU LOOK AT ON ANY OF THE IF YOU CAN JUST GO TO ANY OF THE LAST NINE SLIDES THAT SHOW ALL OF THE PLANS SIDE BY SIDE.
BY WHICH PARTICULAR DISTRICT DOESN'T MATTER? OKAY. YEAH, SO ANY OF THESE SHOW 2010 TO CURRENT, SO THESE ARE CURRENT BOUNDARIES AND WE KNOW THERE'S BEEN POPULATION CHANGES AND MOVEMENTS, ET CETERA.
SO I JUST DID A QUICK LOOK THROUGH OF EACH OF THE PLANS PRESENTED HERE TO LOOK AT THEN SOME OF THESE WENT FROM A CERTAIN POPULATION AND IN SOME CASES WENT TO A LOWER POPULATION IN THAT AREA. SO LOOKING AT JUST PLANS, DISTRICTS FOUR THROUGH NINE, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY MINORITY OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS, WHETHER ON PAPER LIKE DISTRICT SEVEN HAS BEEN MENTIONED OR IN PRACTICE AND LOOKING AT THE IMPACT OF BOTH VOTING AGE AND VOTING AGE POPULATION AND CVAP. WHEN YOU LOOK AT PLAN A IN DISTRICTS FOUR THROUGH NINE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CURRENT VOTING AGE POPULATION OR CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION FOR WHATEVER THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE MINORITY IS, THEORETICALLY THE MINORITY OPPORTUNITY ZONE, I LOOKED AT THE AMOUNT OF TIMES IN ALL THESE PLANS THAT IT FURTHER EXACERBATES THAT DECLINE, WHICH IN MY MIND THINKING ABOUT THIS AS A NEGATIVE IMPACT IN A WORK AGAIN, LIKE IT WORKS TOWARDS RETROGRESSION, WHICH IS WHAT WE DON'T WANT.
WHEN I LOOK AT PLAN A IN SEVEN OF THESE AREAS, WE SEE A FURTHER RETROGRESSION OF THOSE RIGHTS FROM THE OR FROM THE PERCENTAGES THAT WE SEE.
SO FOR INSTANCE, I'LL LOOK AT MY DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY DISTRICT SEVEN IN VOTING AGE POPULATION HISPANIC IS THE LARGEST AND WAS THE LARGEST IN 2010, IN PLAN A, IT GOES DOWN EVEN FURTHER. SO IT WENT FROM SEVENTY FIVE POINT SEVEN TO SEVENTY ONE POINT SIX AND PLAN A DROPS IT EVEN FURTHER.
I JUST KNOW THAT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRYING NOT TO RETROGRESS, THEN WE SHOULD PROBABLY BE LOOKING AT THAT. THERE ARE SEVEN INSTANCES OF THAT FOR PLAN A IN THESE SIX DISTRICTS.
[01:20:01]
THERE ARE WHERE MY NOTES HERE THERE ARE... TRUSTEE MACKEY, ARE YOU SPEAKING AS TO VAP EVENTS? I'M TALKING ABOUT BOTH.
SEVEN INSTANCES OF FURTHER EXACERBATION AND PLAN A FIVE IN PLAN B THREE IN PLAN C SIX AND PLAN D AND FOUR IN PLAN E.
JUST LOOKING AT THAT ALONE, YOU KNOW, C IS THE ONE THAT CLEARLY, IN MY MIND, THE WAY I READ THESE PERCENTAGES AS A NON-LAWYER EXPERT THAT IMPACTS THAT, THE LEAST THAT IN THE MAJORITY OF OUR DISTRICTS FOR WHEREVER THE LARGEST PERCENTAGE WAS.
WE HAVE EITHER KEPT IT THE SAME OR INCREASED IT AS OPPOSED TO FURTHER EXACERBATING THAT.
SO JUST ON ITS FACE, WHEN I LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS, I COULD GO INTO A LOT OF CONVERSATION AND QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THESE, YOU KNOW, I DO FAVOR PLAN C IN THIS.
NOW THAT SAID, I AM NOT THE ONE TO SAY THAT THIS IS A PERFECT PLAN.
I THINK TRUSTEE JOHNSON'S QUOTES AROUND, YOU KNOW, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF MY LIKE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT I KNOW WELL BEING MOVED, ET CETERA.
TRUSTEE FOREMAN HAS SAID THE SAME THING.
I THINK THERE IS ROOM TO WORK FROM A FOUNDATION THAT AS MINIMALLY AS POSSIBLE IMPACTS THE RETROGRESSION, AND WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THOSE AREAS AROUND THE EDGES THAT AREN'T MAKING SENSE OR THAT WE NEED TO MOVE BASED ON THIS.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, BOTH VAP AND CVAP ARE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.
IT IS NOT AN OVERSTATEMENT, AND I THINK WE NEED TO ALL BE ON THE SAME PAGE THAT BOTH ARE IMPORTANT AND THEN WORK FROM FROM THOSE AND TRY TO ADJUST IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE SO THAT EVERYONE SEES WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR BASED ON THE CONCERNS THAT THEY'VE SHARED.
I THINK THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT AND IF IT WERE ME, I WOULD START WITH PLAN C.
ALTHOUGH I THINK YOU CAN ADJUST SOME OF THESE TO MAKE TO MAKE IT TO THAT POINT.
SO THAT'S WHAT I GOT RIGHT NOW.
THOSE ARE JUST MY THOUGHTS ON THERE.
WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO SECOND ROUND FOR TRUSTEES.
WE'LL START WITH TRUSTEE FOREMAN.
CAN YOU START WITH TRUSTEE HENRY; HE HAS TO LEAVE.
YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. TRUSTEE HENRY.
YEAH, THANK YOU, TRUSTEE FOREMAN AND PRESIDENT MACKEY.
DUSTIN PROBABLY KNOWS I'M SITTING HERE GETTING A BIT, I'M STILL IN THE SAME PLACE I WAS BEFORE, SO WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA THAT WE AGREED UPON? THE CRITERIA SLIDE JUST SO THAT THE WHOLE BOARD CAN SEE.
THERE YOU GO. IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE THAT WE'RE KIND OF.
YEAH, SO THESE ARE OUR CRITERIA TRUSTEE HENRY.
THE STATUTORY WHICH WE ARE ALL WORKING FROM IN ALL OF THESE MAPS, WHICH IS GETTING BELOW 10 PERCENT, GETTING AS NEAR AS EQUAL POPULATION BETWEEN THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS, TRYING TO MAINTAIN COMPACT AND CONTIGUOUSNESS AND AVOIDING TO AS MUCH EXTENT AS POSSIBLE THE SPLITTING OF COUNTY ELECTION PRECINCTS FEDERALLY, WHICH HAS BEEN PART OF OUR MAJOR DISCUSSION HERE, HAS BEEN AVOIDING RETROGRESSION AND THEN OUR NON-STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS OR FACTORS ARE IDENTIFYING BOUNDARIES WHEN POSSIBLE, PRESERVING INCUMBENT CONSTITUENCY RELATIONS, MAINTAINING COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST CAN KEEPING NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER AND THEN AS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, PRESERVING EXISTING SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND THIS IS AN APPEAL TO MY COLLEAGUES, AND I'M GOING TO BE ONE OF THEM BECAUSE I'M ABOUT TO GO THERE, TOO, IN RESPONSE TO SOME COMMENTS I HEARD EARLIER, I REALLY THINK WE SET THOSE OUT WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT'S WHAT WE WERE GOING TO FOCUS ON THAT WAS GOING TO HELP US BUILD THESE MAPS, AND WE SOMEHOW JUST DEVOLVED INTO CVAP.
THAT CONVERSATION, WHICH I'M GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO IN A SECOND TO THIS RETROGRESSION CONVERSATION, I JUST HEARD FROM TRUSTEE MACKEY.
WHEN THERE'S ALL THIS NUANCE, WHEN YOU GET INTO THAT STUFF AND YOU GET INTO THE [INAUDIBLE] IT STARTS BECOMING ALL THIS NUANCE, THAT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO BECOME TO REACH AN AGREEMENT UPON.
SO I'M JUST APPEALING TO MY COLLEAGUES AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO GET FOCUSED BACK ON THE STATUTORY FEDERAL, STATE AND NON-STATUTORY THINGS AND LEAD WITH THAT AND THEN MAYBE WE DEAL WITH THIS OTHER STUFF SEPARATELY.
BUT TO KEEP LEADING WITH THIS IS INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING.
TRUSTEE FLORES, I RESPECT YOU HIGHLY.
YOU'RE ONE OF MY FAVORITE PEOPLE.
THE DISCUSSION WE JUST HAD ABOUT CVAP AND VAP AND THE CITIZEN.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW--I'M GOING TO BE REAL.
OUR COLLEAGUES REMEMBER THE TENOR OF 2020 AND WHO WAS IN THE HEAD OF OUR FEDERAL OFFICE AT THAT TIME. THERE WAS A REASON WHY PEOPLE WERE ADVOCATING FOR CITIZENSHIP NOT TO BE PUT ON THERE. I WAS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO SCARE PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT CITIZENS FROM BEING COUNTED IN THE CENSUS, WHICH MEANS FEDERAL MONEY FROM DALLAS, CITY OF DALLAS, THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THERE WAS A HUGE PUSH IN OUR COMMUNITIES TO NOT HAVE THAT ON THERE FOR A VERY SPECIFIC REASON. SO IT'S NOT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.
IT'S VERY INTENTIONAL THAT WE WANTED EVERYONE TO BE COUNTED IN OUR COUNTRY.
AT LEAST I DID. SO YES, IT'S UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF FEAR GOING ON IN 2020 FROM OUR UNDOCUMENTED COMMUNITY, FROM AFRICA, FROM HONDURAS, FROM MEXICO, FROM SALVADOR, FROM WHEREVER THEY WERE SCARED.
[01:25:03]
I THINK THEY WERE. SO THE WAY WE'RE PLAYING WITH THIS STUFF, IT'S GOING TO GET VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO REACH AGREEMENT.TRUSTEE MACKEY ALL RESPECT TO YOU TO, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH I ADMIRE YOU, VOTED FOR YOU TO BE PRESIDENT OF THIS BOARD.
THE IDEA THAT WE GO THROUGH ANY OF THESE MAPS BECAUSE I HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH ALL OF THEM AND TALK ABOUT THERE'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, RETROGRESSION AND FIVE OR SIX JUST HAS BEEN RETROGRESSION. MY DISTRICT WAS MORE BLACK PEOPLE 10 YEARS AGO THAN IT IS NOW.
THAT'S THE NATURAL FLOW OF PEOPLE IN OUR CITY.
THE SAME WITH TRUSTEE FOREMAN, THE SAME WITH TRUSTEE CARREÓN, WHO LOST.
HOW MANY? HOW MANY LATINOS HAVE LEFT YOUR DISTRICT? TEN THOUSAND.
SO IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, RETROGRESSION IN THE SENSE WE'RE GOING TO GO TO COURT AND GET SUED BECAUSE IT'S THE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE.
LATINOS HAVE COME INTO THIS CITY IN ALL PARTS.
THEY DIDN'T SAY, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THIS STREET OR THAT STREET.
THEY MOVED INTO OUR CITY AND WE WELCOME THEM, ET CETERA.
SO I'M REALLY FRUSTRATED IN WHERE THIS CONVERSATION IS GOING.
EVERYONE IS USING THESE LITTLE POLITICAL NUANCE ARGUMENTS WHEN WE REALLY SHOULD JUST BE FOCUSING ON THESE THREE AND I KNOW I'M CONTRIBUTING TO IT, BUT WE JUST NEED TO STOP AND THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT AND I'VE GOT TO GO IN A SECOND, BUT IT'S WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS. IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME, TOO, TRUSTEE FLORES.
I UNDERSTAND THE CVAP DIFFERENCE.
IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT TRUSTEE CARREÓN'S DISTRICT REMAINS AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT. I EVEN TALKED ABOUT ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO I ADMIRE WELL, WHY THAT DISTRICT KEEPS BEING A DISTRICT THAT'S NOT A LATINO OPPORTUNITY, DESPITE BEING SEVENTY ONE PERCENT LATINO. SO IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO ME TOO AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE CVAP CONVERSATION TAKING A SNAPSHOT OF CITIZENSHIP OVER THE COURSE OF FOUR YEARS USING AN ESTIMATE.
YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU TAKE A SNAPSHOT OF POPULATION OVER FOUR YEARS, ROCKY? HOW DO YOU DO THAT? FIVE YEARS.
FIVE YEARS. BUT IT'S JUST THE SURVEYS ARE SENT OUT.
THEY'RE RANDOM SURVEYS, YOU KNOW, SO THEY SEND OUT TO A DIFFERENT SEGMENT OF POPULATION EVERY YEAR COMBINED AND THEN THEY STATISTICALLY, I DON'T DO THAT KIND OF WORK, SO I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW THEY BLEND IT TO BUILD THE ACTUAL NUMBERS.
SO THAT SOUNDS MORE LIKE CHANGE OVER TIME TO ME AND NOT NECESSARILY A SNAPSHOT.
I MEAN, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION IN MY DISTRICT IS HAS THE POPULATION THE SAME IN 2019 AS IT WAS IN 2014? CERTAINLY NOT.
FROM YOUR OPINION, DO YOU THINK THE DEMOGRAPHICS HAVE CHANGED? I'M SURE THERE'S BEEN SOME MOVEMENT.
IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A SNAPSHOT.
I THINK MY DISTRICT--WELL, I'M SORRY, I HATE SAYING THAT--THE DISTRICT THAT I REPRESENT WAS FAR MORE ENDORSED BEFORE [INAUDIBLE] FROM A PART OF MY DISTRICT WAS FAR MORE BLACK IN '14 THAN IT IS IN 2019 AND I'M SURE WE CAN FIND THE DATA TO BACK THAT UP.
SO IT'S CHANGING OVER TIME, OUR CITY'S CHANGING OVER TIME, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE TO DO THIS EVERY 10 YEARS.
SO CAN WE JUST DO IT AND CHOOSE METRICS THAT WE AGREED UPON AND MOVE FORWARD? THE SAME ARGUMENT, TRUSTEE MACKEY, YOU MADE, I CAN MAKE THE FLIP SIDE ARGUMENT ABOUT I'M NOT GOING TO GO THERE. I THINK WE'RE MAKING POLITICALLY CONVENIENT ARGUMENTS.
I'D REALLY LIKE TO MOVE PAST THIS AND GET THIS DONE.
BUT TO KEEP TRYING TO JUSTIFY MAPS THAT PEOPLE CREATED, IT'S NOT RIGHT.
YOU KNOW, TRUSTEE MACKEY JUSTIFYING A MAP THAT YOU HELPED CREATE LIKE THAT IN AND OF ITSELF. DOES IT LINE UP? SO, OF COURSE, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THOSE THINGS.
OF COURSE, YOU'VE SEEN WHAT YOU CREATED.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO BE ANY MORE, IT SOUNDS BLUNT, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS, SO I'M GOING TO STOP. I'VE NEVER BEEN AS FRUSTRATED AS I AM RIGHT NOW ON THIS BOARD IN TWO AND A HALF YEARS, TO BE FRANK. I LOVE YOU ALL.
LOVE SERVING WITH YOU. BUT I'M VERY FRUSTRATED WITH THIS PROCESS AND AGAIN, I SAID THIS LAST TIME, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE NOT ANY MUCH CLOSER THAN WE WERE BEFORE.
OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT AGREE OR DISAGREE.
BUT I SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIKE C, A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT OTHER MAPS EVEN THROWING OUT. THANK YOU MICCICHE FOR MAKING THE POINT THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO JUST THROW OUT MAPS. YOU KNOW, IF TRUSTEE GARCIA [INAUDIBLE], MAYBE I'M OK WITH NOT BEING IN MY DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, OR MAYBE WE CAN JUST MOVE KARLA'S STRAIGHT UP AND MAKE IT WORK.
LET'S JUST MAKE IT WORK. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR THREE YEARS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF KIDS. BUT WE GET TO THIS STUFF, THIS CRAP, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN LIKE THIS IS THE LEAST CONNECTED I'VE SEEN IN THIS BOARD, AND I'M CONTRIBUTING TO IT WITH SOME OF THE STATEMENTS I MADE TODAY, BUT WE GOT TO DO BETTER.
THANK YOU, TRUSTEE HENRY TRUSTEE FOREMAN FIRST.
THANK YOU TRUSTEE MICCICHE FOR REALIZING THAT NO ONE INTENTIONALLY CUT OUT ANY PARTICULAR TRUSTEE AS TRUSTEE FLORES HAS INDICATED.
THE INFORMATION THAT WAS USED IN DRAWING THE MAPS ACTUALLY WAS THE ADDRESS THAT WAS TAKEN FROM TRUSTEE KARLA GARCIA'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT IN JULY.
[01:30:08]
SO I HAD TO GET THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE I WANTED TRUSTEE GARCIA TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL MOTIVATION FOR CUTTING HER OUT OF A DISTRICT ON A MAP THAT WOULD MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.PERIOD. SO NOW THAT INFORMATION IS OUT, TRUSTEE FLORES, I HOPE YOU HAVE OPENED YOUR EARS UP TO UNDERSTAND THAT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL.
THEN I WANT TO JUST GO ON TO TALK ABOUT THIS CVAP.
DALLAS COUNTY JUST WENT THROUGH THIS VERY SAME THING.
THE VERY SAME THING AND THEY DISMISSED CVAP.
DO WE WANT REPRESENTATION--TRUSTEE CARREÓN HAS HEARD ME SAY FROM DAY ONE BEFORE ANYBODY ELSE SAID IS THAT WE NEED THREE, THREE AND THREE.
WE NEED THREE, THREE AND THREE TO MAKE THIS BOARD WORK.
SO WE KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH ON CVAP, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION AS TO.
IN 2010, DID WE USE CVAP AS A CRITERIA? TRUSTEE FOREMAN, TO MY RECOLLECTION, IN LOOKING AT THE SUBMISSION THAT WENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE VOTING ELECTION INFORMATION WAS USED.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CVAP WAS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED IN THE DOJ SUBMISSION, AND I JUST WANTED YOU TO SAY THAT YOU SAID IT VERY KINDLY.
THE ANSWER IS NO AND WE KEEP PUSHING.
I AM JUST AS FRUSTRATED AS TRUSTEE HENRY BECAUSE WE KEEP GOING OVER THE SAME THING; IT'S LIKE BEATING A DEAD HORSE.
WE'VE GOT A TIME FRAME THAT WE HAVE TO GET THIS DONE AND I THINK WE HAVE TO DO IT COLLECTIVELY. I'M NOT PUSHING ANY ONE MAP, BUT I DO APPRECIATE TRUSTEE MICCICHE AGREEING THAT WE NEED TO TWEAK SOME OF THE MAPS THAT DREW SOMEBODY OUT OF THEIR DISTRICT AND LOOK AT ALL THE MAPS SO THAT THERE'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD.
CAN I ADD TO MY ANSWER TRUSTEE FOREMAN BECAUSE I JUST REMEMBERED SOMETHING.
IT WAS SPANISH SURNAME REGISTERED VOTERS.
THAT DATA WAS USED, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S JUST SPANISH SURNAME.
[INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE USING A WHOLE 'NOTHER TERM.
I HAVEN'T HEARD. NO, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE DOJ SUBMISSION FROM 2010 BY PREVIOUS REDISTRICTING COUNCILS INCLUDED SPANISH SURNAME REGISTERED VOTERS.
SPANISH, IS THAT CVAP? NO, THAT IS NOT CVAP.
NOT THE SAME THING. OK, JUST BECAUSE WHEN YOU THROW THOSE NEW NUANCES IN, YOU GET US OFF ON A WHOLE 'NOTHER TALE.
PLEASE DON'T DO THAT. [CHUCKLING] PLEASE DON'T DO THAT BECAUSE WE'RE JUST GOING ALL OVER THE PLACE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
TRUSTEE MARSHALL, FOLLOWED BY TRUSTEE JOHNSON.
YEAH. I'LL BE BRIEF, I JUST WANT TO PICK UP ON A COUPLE OF THEMES THAT DIFFERENT PEOPLE ARE COMMENTING ON.
ONE IS I'M INCLINED TO AGREE WITH TRUSTEE MACKEY THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE AN EITHER OR DECISION ABOUT THAT VAP OR CVAP.
THEY BOTH ARE RELEVANT DATA POINTS THAT SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY IN THE CASE OF CVAP, WHICH IS A CALCULATED NUMBER TAKEN WITH AN APPROPRIATE GRAIN OF SALT, BUT THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS NECESSARY FOR THE REASONS THAT TRUSTEE FLORIDA IS ARTICULATED TO RECOGNIZE THAT A VAP NUMBER FOR A AFRICAN-AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A VAP NUMBER FOR A HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT BECAUSE THE CITIZENSHIP PERCENTAGES ARE DIFFERENT AND THAT'S JUST A STATEMENT OF REALITY AND SO, YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK WE CAN INCORPORATE BOTH DATA POINTS WITH AN APPROPRIATE GRAIN OF SALT INTO OUR DECISION MAKING. I DO AGREE WITH TRUSTEE HENRY THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS CERTAINLY A POLITICALLY CHARGED TOPIC AND HAS BECOME, YOU KNOW, BECOMING MORE POLITICAL WITH EACH PASSING CONVERSATION.
THERE ARE CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE PARTICULARLY CHARGED FROM A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE. BUT WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS AS WE'RE ITERATING ON THESE MAPS, LET'S RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE SOME DISTRICTS THAT ONLY BORDER CERTAIN OTHER TRUSTEE DISTRICTS AND SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING TO TRUSTEE FLORES, IT'S ONLY RELEVANT THAT HE AGREES WITH THE
[01:35:07]
BORDERS OF DISTRICT ONE WITH DISTRICT TWO AND DISTRICT EIGHT.WHEN YOU'RE TALKING WITH ME, IT'S ABOUT DISTRICT THREE, DISTRICT ONE, DISTRICT EIGHT.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF OF BORDERS THAT CAN BE AGREED UPON, AND THEN THOSE CAN FORM THE BASIS ON WHICH FUTURE DISCUSSIONS IN THE OTHER DISTRICTS CAN HAPPEN.
AND SO I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE SHOULD AS OF TODAY, MAKE A DECISION TO GO WITH MAP C, BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT YOU HEAR CERTAIN TRUSTEES SAYING THAT MAPS C IS THE WAY TO GO AND THOSE TRUSTEES INCLUDE DISTRICT ONE, DISTRICT TWO, DISTRICT EIGHT AND DISTRICT SEVEN.
DISTRICT SEVEN IS A DIFFERENT ANOMALY BECAUSE IT BORDERS ALL THE OTHER DISTRICTS, BUT DISTRICTS ONE, TWO AND EIGHT PREDOMINANTLY ONLY BORDER EACH OTHER.
SO AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A STARTING POINT FOR FUTURE CONVERSATION, IT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE TO ME TO START TO HAVE THE OTHER TRUSTEES START WITH MAP C BECAUSE MAP C, AT LEAST IN THE NORTHERN PART OF DISD HAS ESSENTIALLY ALREADY BEEN AGREED TO BY THREE OUT OF THE NINE OF US AND NONE OF US HAVE ANY, YOU KNOW, BORDERS WITH THE FOLKS IN THE SOUTH WHO ARE DEBATING CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO WHAT I WOULD POLITELY SUGGEST IS NOT THAT WE SHOULD PASS MAP C AS IT IS BECAUSE I'M SURE THERE'S LOTS OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT.
BUT IT SEEMS TO ME HIGHLY RATIONAL TO START WITH MAP C AS THE BASIS FOR FUTURE CONVERSATIONS IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE DISTRICT BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT AT LEAST IN THE NORTHERN PARTS OF THE DISTRICT, THERE SEEMS TO BE A STRONG CONSENSUS THAT AT LEAST THREE OF US CAN GET ALONG WITH THAT PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION.
THANKS. THANK YOU, TRUSTEE MARSHALL.
TRUSTEE JOHNSON, FOLLOWED BY TRUSTEE MICCICHE.
YES, THANK YOU. I HEARD TRUSTEE MACKEY SAID VOTES MATTER.
HE SPOKE A FEW MINUTES AGO, HE SAID VOTES MATTER.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, C, DON'T WORK FOR ME BECAUSE MY VOTE HAVE BEEN TAKEN.
POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I SAID [INAUDIBLE] AND BOTH MATTER.
NOW YOU WANT TO CLARIFY, THIS IS YOUR MAP C, AND YOUR MAP WE GOT PACKING, FUTURISTICALLY . IT WON'T BE THREE, THREE, THREE.
EVERYONE HAS SAID WE WANT TO KEEP AN EQUITABLE BOARD THREE THREE THREE.
YOUR SEAT IS GOING TO BE A WHITE SEAT, FLORES SEAT IS A WHITE SEAT, TRUSTEE MARSHALL SEAT IS WHITE SEAT. THAT'S FOUR.
FIVE IS WHERE YOU GET A QUORUM MS. VOTES. SO VOTE MATTERS.
SO THAT'S NOT AN EQUITABLE BOARD; THAT'S FOUR THREE TWO.
BUT I'M SUPPOSED TO SIT HERE AND SAY, OH, THIS IS GREAT.
OF COURSE, AS TRUSTEE HENRY SAYS, THIS IS YOUR MAP, YOU SEE IT.
YOU CREATED IT. I LIKE THE MAP THAT I CREATED.
EVERYBODY LIKED THE MAP THEY CREATED.
BUT I CAN'T SIT HERE AND SAY IN KNOWING THAT THIS IS PACKING AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SAY IT. SO I'M JUST GOING TO PUT IT OUT THERE AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THIS MAP SHOWS THAT, FUTURISTICALLY AND I CANNOT SIT HERE AND SUPPORT THIS NOW.
I HEAR TRUSTEE MARSHALL, I HEARD MY COLLEAGUE AND I'M WILLING TO DO SO.
WHAT HE JUST RECOMMENDED, I'M WILLING TO WORK.
I'VE ALWAYS BEEN WILLING TO WORK.
BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO BE BULLIED AND IT WAS SAID THAT I'M GOING TO BE BULLIED AND OVER AND VOTED OVER BY YOU, TRUSTEE MACKEY.
THAT'S WHAT WAS SAID IN MY COMMUNITY AND YOU CAN DEFEND YOURSELF.
BUT THAT'S WHAT WAS SAID IN MY COMMUNITY.
THEY CAME TO THE CHURCH AND SAID IT.
I'M NOT JUST MAKING IT UP. IT WAS SAD.
NO ONE WANT ME TO SAY ANYTHING.
I TRIED TO WALK OUT AND TRY TO CALM DOWN AND TAKE A WOOSAH MOMENT.
I CALLED PEOPLE THAT I RESPECT TO TRY TO TELL THEM HOW I'M FEELING SO I CAN BE RESPECTFUL WHEN I'M TRYING TO TALK.
I CAN'T SIT HERE AND JUST KEEP GETTING, YOU KNOW, KEEP GETTING PUSHED AND BULLIED AROUND.
SO I WANT TO GET THE SAME RESPECT GIVEN TO MY COMMUNITY AND WHETHER YOU SAID IT OR DIDN'T SAY IT, IT WAS SAID IN THE CHURCH PUBLICLY.
[01:40:03]
SO I CAN'T I CAN'T IGNORE WHAT I'M SEEING AND IGNORE WHAT I HEARD WHEN I'M SEEING IT.IT'D BE A DIFFERENT STORY IF I WASN'T SEEING IT.
SO, WE'RE GOING TO WORK TOGETHER, LET'S WORK TOGETHER, BUT DON'T SIT HERE AND TELL ME I GOT TO DEAL WITH THIS AND EVERYBODY SAYING, OH, THIS IS GREAT.
WELL, NOT FOR ME, NOT FOR THE COMMUNITY.
DISTRICT FIVE, NOT FOR THE KIDS THAT I REPRESENTED DISTRICT FIVE.
IT'S NOT GREAT. OUR VOICE IS GOING.
SO TRUSTEE MARSHALL, I RESPECT YOU.
YOU KNOW, I LOVE YOU LIKE A BROTHER AND I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO YOU, BUT I CAN'T BE BULLIED. I'M PUBLICLY SAYING THAT; EVERYBODY KNOWS IN MY COMMUNITY HOW I FEEL ABOUT YOU.
BUT I CANNOT BE BULLIED AND I WILL NOT BE BULLIED.
I'M MAKING IT KNOWN, PUBLICLY, IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.
SO THOSE THAT SAY THEY LOVE TRUSTEE JOHNSON AND WANT TO WORK WITH TRUSTEE JOHNSON, LET'S WORK TOGETHER FOR KIDS, BUT DON'T TELL ME I GOT TO ACCEPT SOMETHING THAT PUSHES ME AND BULLIED ME AND THEN I GOT TO SUPPORT FUTURISTIC PACKING.
I CAN'T DO THAT. THIS BOARD IS GOING TO BE BUILT ON EQUITY LIKE WE'RE DOING AND WE'RE DOING A GREAT JOB AND LIKE TRUSTEE MARSHALL SAID, THIS IS THE MOST I'VE EVER SEEN US THIS DIVIDED. THIS IS FRUSTRATING CONCERNING THIS ONE ISSUE, JUST CONCERNING THIS ONE ISSUE, I'M LISTENING, I'M LOOKING AT YOU GUYS, YOU'RE CONFUSING ME BECAUSE WHEN I HEARD TRUSTEE FLORES SPEAK ON CVAP, YOU SHAKE YOUR HEAD WHEN I SEE TRUSTEE JOE CARREÓN SPEAKING, WHICH I RESPECT THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE ATTORNEYS, I'M A PREACHER.
I'M A PASTOR. THIS IS NOT MY EXPERTISE.
WANT TO TALK ABOUT THEOLOGY, I GOT YOU.
BUT I'M LISTENING TO THEM AS ATTORNEYS, I'M LISTENING TO TRUSTEE HENRY AS AN ATTORNEY, I'M LISTENING. SO WHEN I SEE THEM MAKE THEIR STATEMENT, YOU SHAKE YOUR HEAD AND AGREE THAT TRUSTEE JOHNSON.
TRUSTEE HENRY SAY SOMETHING AND TRUSTEE MARSHALL YOU SHAKE YOUR HEAD AND AGREE.
WELL, WHO'S RIGHT? IS GOING RIGHT? YEP. GOING WRONG? YEAH. WELL, I'M CONFUSED, SO I'M CONFUSED, I KNOW A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE OUT HERE CONFUSED. SO IS IT VAP? IS IT CVAP? SO I'M GONNA ASK THE QUESTION AND JUST GIVE IT TO ME IN THE SIMPLEST FORM SO MY COMMUNITY CAN HEAR TRUSTEE JOHNSON ASK THE QUESTION.
SO I'M GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION.
WHAT IS VAP OR CVAP? I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHICH ONE IS RIGHT.
DID WE EVER IN THE PAST I WAS NOT THIS.
I WASN'T EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT THEN, RIGHT? PROBABLY NOT.
BUT HAS THERE EVER BEEN A TIME IN THE PAST THAT WE USED CVAP? IT'S JUST YES OR NO? FOR 2010, CVAP WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SUBMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
SO THAT'S NO CORRECT? THAT'S A NO SIR, YES.
SO WHEN WAS CVAP--SO HAS IT EVER BEEN USED? TO CLARIFY, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY EVER BEEN USED? TEN YEARS AGO, YOU SAID NO.
TEN YEARS BEFORE THAT WAS USED WASN'T EVEN AROUND.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY USED? DO YOU MEAN USED BY THE DISTRICT? TO MAKE A DECISION, THE DECISION THAT WE'RE USING CONCERNING CVAP AND VAP, HAS CVAP BEEN EVER EVER USED? I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CVAP IN 2010.
WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT IT WAS NOT INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHEN IT REQUESTED PRECLEARANCE, THE CURRENT PLAN? SO THE ANSWER IS NO.
OK, SO THAT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THEN I'M LISTENING TO TRUSTEE HENRY AND I'M UNDERSTANDING HIS POINT OF VIEW.
OK, I UNDERSTAND WHAT TRUSTEE JOE IS SAYING.
BUT WHEN I LOOK AT HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS, IT'S REALLY DISTRICT SEVEN.
SO, NOW, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ARE WE GOING BACK AND FORTH IS WHERE ARE WE GOING TO BASE OUR NUMBERS ON? THAT'S THE CONFUSING PART.
OK, SO WE DON'T CONTINUE TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE.
I'M LIKE TRUSTEE HENRY; LET'S JUST GET TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN GET THEM OUT, BUT DON'T TELL ME I GOT TO CHOOSE A MAP THAT BULLIES MY COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY BULLIES ME AND I'M GIVING UP VOTES AND I DON'T SEE NOBODY ELSE DOING IT.
AND THEN I'M SITTING HERE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING.
I'M LOOKING AT IT'S GOING TO BE IF THIS GOES FOR THREE TO.
WITH THE MAJORITY BEING THE MINORITY.
THAT'S NOT RIGHT. I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT, AND I'LL GET A LAWYER IF I NEED TO.
I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE GO BACK TO THE PRINCIPLES WE LAID OUT.
WE HAVE A WE HAVE A GOOD REDISTRICTING TEAM, ASK THEM TO LOOK AT OUR PRINCIPLES.
I'M ASSUMING THAT EVERYONE IS IS COMFORTABLE THAT THE REDISTRICTING TEAM DOESN'T HAVE
[01:45:07]
A PARTICULAR AX TO GORE TO GRIND HERE AND AND ASK THEM TO CONSIDER THE PRINCIPLES WE LAID OUT AND THEN SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED HERE THAT I THINK TRUSTEE CARREÓN HAS RAISED A LEGITIMATE CONCERN ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT EVEN IF THERE'S NOT TECHNICAL RETROGRESSION THAT DISTRICT EIGHT DOES NOT LOSE A SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF HISPANIC CVAP AND CERTAINLY TRUSTEE JOHNSON, I BELIEVE, HAS A LEGITIMATE CLAIM THAT THE WAY THE MAPS HAVE BEEN, THE FIRST MAPS WERE WRITTEN. THEY DO, THEY DO TAKE THE COMMUNITY HE IS FROM, ESSENTIALLY OUT OF HIS DISTRICT, EVEN THOUGH THEY LEAVE HIM IN THE DISTRICT AND I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOME, SOME ACCOMMODATION THERE.OBVIOUSLY, IF WE LOOK AT THE OTHER MAPS, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT TRUSTEE GARCIA IS INSIDE AND TRUSTEE HENRY ARE INSIDE THEIR DISTRICTS.
BUT I PROBABLY SPENT THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TIME ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AND ANYONE ELSE, BUT I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN COME TOGETHER, AND THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME TOGETHER IS IS TO LOOK AT OUR ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES AND THEN LOOK AT WHAT THOSE FIRST THREE DRAFTS IN MY IN MY OPINION, YOU KNOW HOW FAR THEY WERE IN TERMS OF MEETING OUR ORIGINAL GOALS AND THEN TWEAKING THEM TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THESE THESE PARTICULAR CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, THERE ARE A LOT OF MAPS OUT THERE.
I DIDN'T DRAW ANY OF THEM, I DIDN'T DRAW ANY.
I WASN'T AROUND TO DRAW THE OLD MAPS, BUT I AM HOPEFUL WE CAN ALL COME TOGETHER.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, TRUSTEE MICCICHE, ANYONE ELSE FOR SECOND ROUND? TRUSTEE FLORES.
SO I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS, SO I WAS HERE IN 2010 AND WE DID DISCUSS SIGNIFICANTLY THE QUESTION AND WHETHER WE CALLED IT, YOU KNOW, HISPANIC SURNAME REGISTERED VOTERS.
THE POINT WAS WE WERE LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN THAT DISTRICT AND THE HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS OR CITIZENS AND WHETHER IT GOT SUBMITTED TO THE DOJ OR NOT, IT WAS CERTAINLY A POINT OF DISCUSSION THAT WE WANT TO CALL [INAUDIBLE] TO HAVE US EXPLAIN TO US THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPANISH SURNAME REGISTERED VOTERS AND CVAP, WE CAN DO THAT. BUT HE WAS HERE AND WE CAN CALL HIM AND CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, GET HIS INPUT, AS YOU KNOW, OUR FORMER LAWYER.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT THE DALLAS COUNTY DISMISSED CVAP.
WELL, THEY DID. THEY ALSO FORGOT TO INVITE THEIR HISPANIC LAWYER TO PARTICIPATE AS PART OF THAT PROCESS AND SO WHEN THEY WENT TO VOTE ON THESE MAPS, HE WASN'T THERE AND COMMISSIONER GARCIA IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHERE'S RIOS? YOU KNOW, HE NEEDS TO BE A SEAT AT THE TABLE IS ONE OF THE LAWYERS AND HE WASN'T THERE AND THEN WHEN THEY WENT TO FINALLY VOTE ON IT, SHE ABSTAINED BECAUSE SHE WAS SO FRUSTRATED WITH THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, A SECOND COMMISSIONERS COURT DISTRICT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE MORE TO BE A HISPANIC OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT AND IT WAS NOT DONE SO AND SO TWO OF THE COMMISSIONERS, ONE VOTED AGAINST THE MAPS, ONE ABSTAINED FROM THE MAPS AND THE SLAM DUNK THREE WENT AHEAD AND GOT THE MAP THAT THEY WANTED BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO. SO I'M NOT SURE WE WANT TO FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT.
SO THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE FOR SECOND ROUND? I WILL JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE OUTLANDISH AND DISRESPECTFUL STATEMENT THAT I FEEL LIKE FROM TRUSTEE JOHNSON REGARDING WHETHER WHAT I SAID, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY PATENTLY FALSE.
YOU MAY HEAR THINGS FROM OTHER PEOPLE OR WHATNOT.
THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN IT'S TRUE.
I HEAR A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S TRUE AND THAT'S DISAPPOINTING AND DISRESPECTFUL.
MY GOAL IN THIS FROM THE BEGINNING HAS BEEN TO GET US TO USE THESE, AND I THINK I HEAR A
[01:50:05]
LOT OF THESE. I FULLY AGREE WITH TRUSTEE MICCICHE.THE CONVERSATION OF VAP AND CVAP, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE HERE IS AROUND WHETHER OR NOT THE FEDERAL STATUTORY ONE IS HAPPENING.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT I AM HEARING.
BUT YOU ALL ARE THE EXPERTS, AND SO YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM US ON THIS.
HOPEFULLY, YOU'RE ABLE TO TAKE THIS WORK WITH SOMETHING, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FEEDBACK FROM ALL OF THE TRUSTEES, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOU ALL WHAT YOU BRING BACK TO US ON THE 16TH. SO NOTHING ELSE THERE.
JUST REAL QUICKLY, ONCE AGAIN, AN INCORRECT STATEMENT WAS MADE REGARDING DALLAS COUNTY OF MR. RIOS WAS ON A CONFERENCE CALL WHEN THEY MADE THE VOTE FOR THE MAPS.
ONE PERSON VOTED AGAINST THE OTHER, THREE VOTED FOR.
SO WE HAVE TO GIVE CORRECT INFORMATION WHEN WE DO THAT.
SINCE WE'RE JUST THROWING ADDITIONAL STUFF IN, SO ANYBODY WANTS A HIGH RESOLUTION VERSION OF MAPS A, B AND D, AND THEY WANT TO SEE, I'LL BE GLAD TO, YOU KNOW, GET THEM COPIES OF THE BIG FAT FORTY EIGHT BY FORTY EIGHT PDF THAT SHOWS HOW, YOU KNOW, BOTH TRUSTEES --THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I'LL BE GLAD TO SPEAK TO THEM.
THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. WE HAVE ONE HEARING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.