Written by the reviewer from the ASR + docket; [verbatim-ASR] = quoted machine transcript; [paraphrase] = reviewer's wording, not a quote.
0:00 All right, we'll call Committee of the Whole to order.
0:05 I think Council Member Berlick won't be joining us or he'll be late.
0:12 Late, okay, yes, his child has a special event.
0:18 We have too many high-excelling council kids these days that are also getting recognized
0:22 at school board meetings, so that's a good problem to have.
0:27 All right, so first I will move to approve the minutes of the March 30th Committee of the Whole.
0:33 Motions are made and seconded.
0:36 Hearing none, all those in favor?
0:38 And that motion passes.
0:40 Okay, so we have two main items on the agenda for tonight.
0:46 The first is we have the litigation update regarding pending litigation,
0:53 and then we also have the charter amendment related to redistricting.
0:59 So, and we thought probably the litigation update might be about a half an hour,
1:04 do we think, would be sufficient?
1:06 And that's with time for questions.
1:10 So maybe what we'll do is why don't we do the charter first
1:18 and then we'll just save a half an hour at the end for that.
1:22 So this, to refresh everybody's memory, this is Ordinance 19-2026.
1:29 So this is the one regarding redistricting,
1:32 establishing a redistricting process for the wards, the four wards.
1:38 And the charter currently, and law department correct me if I'm wrong,
1:41 but when I reviewed the charter it just says
1:43 that there should be four ward council members,
1:45 but it doesn't say how the wards are drawn
1:47 and they're currently drawn by just ordinance.
1:51 All right, so the Charter View Commission recommended that there be a process.
1:57 I think this is particularly relevant right now,
2:00 given the recent Supreme Court decision further upsetting the Voting Rights Act,
2:06 diminishing it in Section 2,
2:08 and allowing for more gerrymandering and congressional redistricting.
2:13 So important that even though I don't think, as I've said before,
2:19 anyone currently on council would attempt to do that.
2:23 We want to have things established in charter,
2:27 which is essentially our constitution,
2:29 so that we're not relying on norms and people's personal ethics,
2:34 and it's enshrined in law, in my opinion.
2:37 So, and that was the Charter View Commission opinion as well.
2:41 So the way this is currently written, the ordinance,
2:46 and we had some preliminary discussion about this,
2:51 the way the Charter View Commission suggested that we do this is,
2:56 upon the adoption of the charter,
3:00 at least 100 days prior to the filing date of nominating petitions
3:03 for the terms beginning in January 28,
3:05 that they had the Planning Commission reviewing
3:08 and making appropriate redivisions.
3:10 And then, again, and beginning after the census in January 2030,
3:19 once the Secretary of State proclaims the population of cities,
3:25 then the Planning Commission shall review
3:26 and make appropriate redivisions of the city into four wards,
3:30 and then it sets out some ways in which those should be drawn,
3:33 some parameters that they need to be nearly equal in population,
3:40 composed of contiguous and compact territory,
3:42 bounded by natural boundaries or street lines,
3:45 and then that city council shall adopt and enact the divisions
3:50 proposed by the Planning Commission
3:51 unless council specifically finds that such redivisions
3:54 are not contiguous or compact
3:55 or bounded by natural boundaries or street lines.
3:58 And then those would go into place
3:59 for the next regular municipal election.
4:02 We had some conversation last time.
4:04 It seemed like most folks were in agreement
4:06 that it's good to have a process.
4:08 There was just some folks wanted to do some thinking
4:11 about the specific processes laid out
4:14 and any potential changes that you'd like to see.
4:18 Vice President Baker.
4:21 Yes, and I think the process,
4:25 and by the way, we could do this with an ordinance as well,
4:28 like tomorrow, but I think that the wisdom
4:33 of the Charter Review Commission is really good here.
4:35 My concern is a little bit process-wise now,
4:38 digging back into this,
4:39 is we would essentially have a war boundary
4:43 for like two years and then it would re-trigger again
4:46 to do it again in like two or three years,
4:47 so the intention for it to be every 10 years.
4:51 So I'm just curious as to my colleague's opinion on that.
4:54 Technically, it looks like it would be like next year
4:59 would be a redistricting year, I guess,
5:02 under this charter's prescriptive language.
5:05 And then after we got the census data,
5:09 which typically comes in,
5:10 I think like at the end of 2030,
5:13 then we would do it again for the elections held
5:16 and our elections are typically held
5:18 in odd number of years,
5:23 So it'd be like a weird,
5:25 and assuming population wouldn't change that much,
5:28 I'm just curious if we're good with that, just a thought.
5:33 Yeah, just to clarify,
5:36 I think when this was originally,
5:42 I think this is pretty much the same
5:44 as what the law department sent,
5:45 you guys can correct me if I'm wrong on that,
5:46 but one of the things in section one, though,
5:50 that was changed was because it's been a while
5:53 since charter review, so sent there,
5:57 that was 2024, I think, that they finished their work.
6:01 And then, so when they first would have sent this in,
6:06 it might have been going into do this process now,
6:10 and that would have been a couple of years ago.
6:11 So now that we're getting closer to 2030,
6:14 we could take out that initial 2028,
6:21 redistricting, and just wait until the 2030 census
6:24 at this time, so you don't have that weird thing.
6:27 The other thing, I was trying to think through
6:29 that time-wise, too, in terms of,
6:31 it makes sense to do it, certainly after the census,
6:34 so that we have that fresh data,
6:37 but making sure that aligns so that
6:43 that the recommendations would come in
6:45 and be able to be adopted before the filing deadline.
6:51 Like, I think, substantially in advance
6:53 of the filing deadline.
6:54 Right, so that would be June, right?
7:02 So, yes, June, it would be the filing deadline
7:05 if we have a primary, which also goes
7:08 to the rank choice voting thing, but in any case,
7:11 for council and mayor.
7:13 Typically June, yeah, because it's September.
7:17 September election, yeah, so that'd be June,
7:20 so if the census data came out at the end of 2030,
7:25 it would have six months, but not really,
7:29 because you'd wanna have it published before.
7:32 Then it would have to go
7:33 through the planning commission process
7:34 and then come to us for approval.
7:41 Is that something to think about?
7:43 Whether it would be in effect for the,
7:54 I also did wanna mention that I did look up,
7:56 so the last time the words were established
7:59 by ordinances, as Vice President Baker mentioned,
8:02 we could do this by ordinance.
8:04 The only downside to that is, again,
8:08 because we can do it by ordinance,
8:10 future council can undo it by ordinance.
8:12 So, whereas putting it in the charter
8:14 makes it that the voters have the control.
8:18 But the last time the words were established,
8:21 the current ordinances were done in 1971,
8:23 establishing the current four words.
8:25 So, it's been a long time since this was looked at.
8:29 Other council members?
8:31 Council member Bixenstein.
8:33 Thank you, President Keppel.
8:36 Yeah, I think this is,
8:37 it makes sense for us to explore this
8:38 and I agree with being process oriented.
8:41 This question, I guess, is a bit specific to me,
8:44 but really, it could be applicable
8:46 to anybody in a hypothetical.
8:49 As a ward council person who oversees a ward
8:52 that currently does have a higher population
8:54 but also lives near the boundary of the ward,
8:58 I could put myself in a scenario where I switch wards.
9:02 And I'm not so much concerned about
9:05 what happens to me there per se,
9:08 but more so just as part of this process,
9:10 I guess we just think through
9:11 what happens in a scenario like that,
9:13 because it could happen elsewhere as well.
9:20 Yeah, and that is true,
9:21 and that is also kind of one of those things too
9:25 where it would be an unfortunate consequence
9:28 for the current council members,
9:30 but also taking it out of the reverse of that
9:34 is, of course, at the state and federal level,
9:36 we see maps being intentionally drawn
9:40 so that elected politicians get to choose their districts
9:44 rather than the district choosing the politicians,
9:45 so it is an unfortunate potential consequence
9:51 that could happen as well.
9:54 Councilman Bixenstein.
9:54 Yeah, and to be clear,
9:56 I'm not so much concerned about my particular situation,
9:58 but more so just having a policy in place
10:00 if that were to occur down the road.
10:04 Other council members?
10:06 Councilmember Striebeck.
10:10 I echo my colleague's concern.
10:12 I too am near a border for a ward,
10:15 and Lord knows another council person from ward two
10:21 on this day is probably not necessary.
10:26 And I agree that we could look at that.
10:29 We should consider that,
10:31 that if you're an incumbent elected official,
10:34 that you cannot get drawn out of your ward.
10:38 I mean, there's gotta be some kind of language
10:41 that we could put in there.
10:45 And I think by the time we get to this,
10:48 if we go into the third,
10:51 when we talk about 2030,
10:55 it may not be a concern for myself,
10:58 but going into the future,
11:01 I think that that is something to consider
11:04 for people that come in one day,
11:08 one week and you're on council,
11:09 and then you're drawn out of your district.
11:12 And I don't think that that's very fair either.
11:17 Vice President Baker.
11:18 Yeah, and I think it's helpful
11:19 to think about it from our perspective, right?
11:21 We're the current holders of these seats, right?
11:26 Particularly the warded folks.
11:29 But I think if you think about it
11:30 from the perspective of charter,
11:36 ultimately this would come before council.
11:39 So the whole point here is that
11:40 this comes before council.
11:42 And I think that having a good process in place
11:44 is really important.
11:50 And the wards don't belong to us,
11:54 they belong to the residents of the city
11:56 or the voters of the city,
11:57 or however we wanna say it.
11:59 And so the one thing I think about is,
12:03 as a lawyer, your eyes always go to the shall language.
12:08 And that's where I think shall adopt unless, right?
12:11 And so the question becomes,
12:14 is it a strong presumption of adoption
12:16 based upon the planning commission's recommendation?
12:20 Now, I think at the end of the day,
12:22 you're never gonna have a process
12:23 that is entirely void of,
12:27 politics is a bad word,
12:29 but politics is people talking to each other
12:32 and thinking about how we should govern our city, right?
12:35 That's not a bad word,
12:36 that's just how we govern our city.
12:42 I think this is a really good thing
12:44 and I think it would,
12:47 I'd probably get more streets, right?
12:49 If we're thinking about it from a personal perspective.
12:50 Ward one, surface area wise,
12:53 I guess if land could vote,
12:54 ward one would have an outsized kind of position.
13:00 You're gonna have more to canvas?
13:01 A little more spread out in ward one.
13:03 So walking Ernie's neighborhood is a little different
13:06 than walking where I grew up on Rio.
13:08 So yeah, so it's just,
13:10 it's one of those things.
13:11 I think that this is a fair,
13:12 the only thing I would kind of focus on is the shall.
13:17 Cause I think that,
13:19 I'm interested in the law department's analysis
13:23 You know, I think what they're trying to do,
13:25 the charter review commission is,
13:27 is say that we don't want you to take into account
13:29 other factors other than contiguous compact
13:33 bounded by natural boundaries or street lines
13:36 or doesn't provide for equal population distribution.
13:41 So I guess, you know,
13:44 that opens up a process where technically
13:46 a planning commission recommends something
13:49 and city council changes it
13:52 cause that's where this process goes.
13:53 They recommend we determine for adoption.
13:58 What does that look like?
13:59 You know, what's the,
14:00 is it a taxpayer lawsuit against the city for,
14:05 you know, city council for not following the,
14:08 because they think it's not compact enough
14:10 for our decision was because it was,
14:12 actually this one's more contiguous.
14:14 And so I'm just curious if we thought about that
14:16 from a law department standpoint
14:17 of like what that would look like.
14:21 You know, we didn't.
14:23 And obviously, you know, a taxpayer suit is possible
14:29 in a lot of different scenarios.
14:30 I think the commission mostly wanted to make sure
14:34 that it was commemorated in the charter
14:36 that there be some process
14:37 and that future councils couldn't just throw out
14:40 that work that had been done.
14:42 And like council president,
14:44 a couple was saying with gerrymandering
14:47 and be like, nope, we think there's better lines
14:48 because that would suit the candidates
14:51 or the parties or whatever.
14:54 So that language was very carefully drafted.
14:57 I don't remember councilwoman Steiner,
15:02 was that language taken from somewhere?
15:04 Oh, you're recused, sorry.
15:09 I almost did, I almost blew it.
15:13 I know that a lot of research went into this
15:16 in this specific language.
15:18 And like I said, I think the idea is just to make sure
15:22 that like you stated, councilman Baker,
15:25 that the words are based on those factors
15:29 and that other matters or thought processes
15:32 don't come into that process.
15:36 I mean, there are opinions that the dividing line
15:38 should be East and West and not North South,
15:40 like all sorts of different conversations that were had,
15:43 but this is kind of what they honed in on
15:46 as being the minimum language in the charter.
15:51 I'll just add to that if I may, council president.
15:59 The city council obviously is accountable
16:04 as an institution to the voters.
16:06 The planning commission is not something
16:09 for you to think about because under this verbiage,
16:13 and I certainly respect the charter review commission,
16:19 city council, even in their best of judgment
16:23 and discretion would not be able to stray
16:25 from those factors if it's in there.
16:28 So we're putting a lot of trust
16:30 in the planning commission to get it right,
16:33 to have the best of motivations and incentives.
16:37 And if not, there's no accountability.
16:43 So I think this is somewhat related
16:46 to what the vice president was just speaking to,
16:49 something for council to think about
16:51 if you wanna defer that kind of decision-making
16:58 Another thought I had, one of the reasons
17:01 the planning commission was suggested
17:04 in charter review commission was because of,
17:08 they would have experience looking at mapping software
17:11 and those sorts of things.
17:12 However, it is also worth noting in addition
17:15 to Director Vargo's point is it is a smallish body
17:20 that isn't necessarily representative
17:23 of the community in a lot of ways.
17:24 So another thought is, Director Vargo's point
17:31 is I understand the accountability issue,
17:35 it's also the taking it out of a lot of people
17:41 a lot of folks have looked at ways
17:43 to take district drawing like at the state level
17:46 out of the hands of the candidates
17:48 who could benefit from drawing the line.
17:50 So what does that look like?
17:53 So another thought is using the citizens advisory
18:01 committee, which would be a bigger body
18:05 potentially more representative could also be less shell
18:11 and more for council to approve.
18:16 But then we're back to that we would be in the process.
18:24 So things to think about there.
18:27 It could also be that they make a recommendation
18:33 in that if council doesn't approve them
18:35 the maps stay as they have been or something.
18:40 Open to other thoughts.
18:42 Councilman Bullock.
18:43 Thanks, I appreciate the thoughtful conversation.
18:46 Also, by the way, I'm gonna have to excuse myself
18:48 kind of like the council person to my left
18:52 and then come back late.
18:54 I've got a few minutes still.
18:55 So the couple thoughts first.
19:00 So I love the charter review commissions
19:04 creative initiative and proposals they put forward.
19:07 Part of me also wants to say that it's also a valid
19:12 outcome if the charter review commission said
19:14 we're not going to amend.
19:15 Like we don't just have to amend everything
19:18 because we have the opportunity.
19:20 We make some choiceful non-amendments.
19:22 Maybe that happened.
19:24 But I just put that out there
19:29 from the perspective of kind of restraint
19:33 when addressing the charter
19:36 which is our most enduring document.
19:38 That said, I think this is a good one
19:41 that I support and like to see the principle enacted.
19:48 I've got a proposed insertion
19:54 but also on the process that we've discussed.
19:59 So to me, it's prudent to have this
20:03 based on the best data.
20:06 So I don't feel as strongly about trying to amend wards
20:10 or have a process for amending wards
20:12 prior to the next census.
20:15 In fact, I kind of lean towards waiting for 2030 data
20:18 since, well, I don't know,
20:21 probably but maybe I could be
20:28 To address the timing issue,
20:30 I think that's a good one.
20:31 My thought would be that the council
20:34 use decennial census data
20:37 which we don't control the timeline
20:38 of when that gets delivered and verified.
20:40 And we could probably research a little bit better.
20:43 Different tiers of data come out earlier or later.
20:46 And so the question would be when does a mid-size city
20:49 like Lakewood's data come out?
20:51 I bet you Rick Seca and Marshall Mall could tell us
20:53 or Dan Wyman could tell us.
20:56 So we could have some working sense.
20:58 On those years though, let's say every 10 years
21:01 we had an update or a potential update.
21:03 We could buy, I think, ordinance just for that year
21:07 move back the date of the primary to accommodate that
21:11 and make it a rational.
21:14 Well, so you include that adjustment.
21:17 You know what I mean?
21:19 That happens in the state elections too
21:21 where this year state primaries are in May
21:28 in the presidential year, it's earlier, it's in March
21:31 because of the different schedule.
21:32 That's just one option for how you might handle that
21:35 because it takes the point like you wanna not miss
21:39 the ward cycle which happens to fall, I guess.
21:43 Is that always gonna be the case?
21:45 Or is it gonna alternate decades?
21:46 Because if it's gonna be 2031,
21:50 whoever thought you could count up to 2031 for God's sake.
21:57 So it won't be, so maybe what we consider
22:01 is a one-time exception to allow the schedule to work
22:08 in a practical sense.
22:09 To me, I would consider that you could even put that
22:13 in the language of the charter rather than rush
22:15 to kind of get data that's less ideal.
22:19 That's just my philosophy.
22:22 The other thing about whether the languages say shall
22:28 or not, it probably should say shall
22:35 if we believe in this process.
22:37 Otherwise, it opens the door to city council
22:39 gaining the process.
22:42 I think there's a loophole though
22:45 because we could have the planning commission
22:50 We shall adopt unless we find some pretty narrowly
22:54 defined problems with it.
22:56 So it goes into effect and then we pass
22:58 an immediately redistricting however we want.
23:02 Because all that this proposal says
23:04 is that the council shall implement
23:07 the planning commission's recommendation
23:09 but it doesn't prevent us, does it,
23:12 from redistricting by ordinance at any time.
23:16 That's a valid point.
23:19 So obviously that would be not in the spirit.
23:23 If council were to do that,
23:24 that could be a way that you address
23:28 the one street, one half street issue
23:34 for incumbent council members.
23:38 On the other hand, to be honest,
23:40 it's probably the spirit of this
23:41 would not be to accommodate us as incumbents.
23:44 It would be say tough, we're gonna have to duke it out
23:49 and Cindy Streepid would flatten anybody who.
23:53 I'm saying that with respect
23:54 because you're such a strong neighbor.
23:55 Making perfectly clear, unfair to the voters as well
24:00 that have elected their candidate
24:02 to the work that they've done to research
24:05 and figure out who they want to represent them
24:09 to then say to them, we gotta pick somebody else now
24:15 that may have never been in the conversation
24:18 or been in the election.
24:23 Last point, I would like to suggest
24:28 that we insert language to get the socioeconomic diversity
24:32 which a number of other council members
24:33 have made a point of.
24:35 I share the respect for the current north to south shapes
24:44 because it does balance socioeconomic diversity
24:47 and that's not currently in the proposal.
24:50 So the suggestion I have would be,
24:53 and this is not great wordsmithing,
24:55 but it's a starting point,
24:56 would be you insert in the new charter section.
25:03 So I'm just reading the commencing
25:06 with federal census descendently taken
25:09 in the close proximity to January 1, 2030.
25:11 So that's like paragraph two.
25:14 You would say potentially after
25:18 okay, planning commission shall review
25:19 and make necessary appropriate revisions
25:21 to the city of four words
25:22 which shall be as nearly equal in population
25:24 as is possible, comma.
25:25 And then insert shall be as nearly as possible
25:29 equally balanced in socioeconomic diversity, comma.
25:33 Then continue each word.
25:36 The spirit of that concept would be
25:39 right now as written you could do four quadrants
25:43 or something and then you'd have
25:46 a less affluent district, a very affluent district.
25:49 I don't think that's the spirit
25:50 of what's proposed here in vision,
25:52 but it would be permissible
25:55 and maybe somebody would make it argument
25:57 oh, that's a good idea for some reason.
25:59 The counter view is that having each word
26:02 have a balance of socioeconomic diversity
26:06 it brings with it some positives.
26:10 I do think, I have a vague memory
26:13 that the charter view commission discussed
26:15 at that point about the socioeconomic diversity
26:20 and I have a vague memory of that
26:23 so I'm not, but I do feel like
26:25 that that was a discussion point
26:27 of how and whether to articulate that in here
26:31 because of just the nature of Lakewood
26:38 how that could make it challenging
26:39 to draw based on depending on the data.
26:44 So it could actually end up
26:45 making them less contiguous I think,
26:47 but I could be told,
26:49 I do recall something being discussed
26:51 about the point of the socioeconomic diversity.
26:54 I would, I'm thinking just to make some progress here.
27:00 I think, I tend to think that,
27:04 I think at the time when this was originally drafted
27:07 and the charter view submitted to us in 2024,
27:13 so that would have been for the terms
27:15 to commence in 2026.
27:18 It would have made more sense
27:19 to do an initial redistricting
27:22 and then do it again after 2030,
27:24 but I think at this point
27:25 it doesn't make a whole lot of sense
27:28 to do it for the terms beginning 2028
27:32 so that they would need,
27:36 and we would do it again in 2030.
27:38 It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me
27:40 because you'd be midterm.
27:43 So it would make more sense to do it after,
27:49 I think what I'm suggesting
27:51 is probably striking section one
27:54 and just making section two the new section one.
28:01 And so I'm gonna make a motion to do that.
28:07 Motion's been made and seconded.
28:08 Any further discussion?
28:11 Hearing none, all those in favor?
28:18 Or abstentions, you said abstain?
28:20 And I didn't hear anybody pose, right?
28:24 All right, so, well that's some progress anyway.
28:27 And then another thing in terms of timing,
28:36 I think the idea of connecting it to the federal census
28:39 makes certainly a lot of sense.
28:41 You want the most updated data,
28:42 but to the point of also the ward terms
28:47 being on a four-year schedule,
28:49 how that's going to flow.
28:52 So it might make sense to do it,
28:55 so the next ward cycle would be 28, right?
29:03 27's the election term to commence in 20.
29:08 So then that would be 32 would be the next new term
29:17 Yeah, so maybe tying it instead of,
29:20 so it would be using the federal census data,
29:22 but tie it so that it happens prior to the beginning,
29:27 prior to the filing deadline of the terms
29:32 to commence in 32, if that makes sense?
29:36 Yeah, I guess as I think about this more,
29:38 I get concerned about,
29:41 right now we have socioeconomic data with the census.
29:45 We are in a time of great,
29:48 I mean, the Department of Commerce
29:49 is the one who runs the census,
29:50 and there's a lot of monkeying around
29:54 with the data that comes out of there.
29:56 And do we get, and so the timeline,
29:58 I suppose they need it for their own district, right?
30:02 Like for apportionment and electoral votes
30:06 and those kinds of things.
30:07 So at least the population data will come out,
30:09 but as far as like the deeper dive
30:11 and the sub-tab or cross tabs, I guess you'd call them.
30:16 So tying it to that and then have a timeline,
30:19 what happens if they bust the timeline
30:21 and then we have like a, you know,
30:25 I guess that's how it is.
30:29 Council Member Ballek is a good, thoughtful point.
30:32 I guess, so you could let that be determined
30:39 by the Planning Commission as to how,
30:41 so the proposal doesn't define all the terms proposed
30:46 that the Charter Amendment define all terms,
30:49 so it's gonna be dictionary language.
30:51 So socioeconomic diversity,
30:53 either need to be defined or you rely on the Charter,
30:56 the Planning Commission rather
30:57 with the Law Department's Council
30:59 to come up with an appropriate metric.
31:02 It occurs to me that County,
31:05 Cuyahoga County has some data.
31:08 Property values are pretty widely known.
31:12 I don't know if that's an acceptable proxy or not.
31:15 It's probably partly indicative and partly not,
31:21 but I suspect there's a way that we could solve for that.
31:27 It's a good point that the census has been,
31:30 become another frontier in the never-ending
31:33 and always escalating political wars,
31:36 which is ludicrous, but that's a risk.
31:39 But of course we're gonna get better leadership
31:40 by the time the 2030 census rolls around.
31:44 So you know what I mean?
31:45 Like, so that would be,
31:46 so maybe that's the question would be,
31:49 do, if we can't rely on accurate and timely data
31:53 from the Census Bureau,
31:54 which I hope that will never happen,
31:56 do we have enough local proxies to use?
32:03 Thank you, Council President.
32:04 Just some, I believe, to be facts.
32:08 These are not policy suggestions.
32:10 These are just facts.
32:11 The criteria that the Charter Review Commission
32:16 provided are objective.
32:21 Population, contiguous territory, boundaries.
32:27 Socioeconomic status seems more subjective than that.
32:35 Subject to argument.
32:38 Is the Planning Commission,
32:42 I mean, these are volunteers.
32:44 They have a full plate with respect to
32:47 what they otherwise do on the Planning Commission.
32:51 It would be a big request for them to get it right.
32:55 And it is, it's not theoretical
33:00 that somebody who is disgruntled
33:02 or a group disgruntled by this would not sue.
33:06 We have seen a case involving Lakewood's charter
33:10 where a resident sued because of a variation
33:14 of what a Planning Commission said
33:16 and what the city administration did.
33:22 And the appellate court deferred to the administration.
33:27 And if, so that's something to consider
33:30 if we're going to accept some subjectiveness to this,
33:34 what is the risk down the road?
33:39 You know, another point here is,
33:43 well, two things in my head that are questions
33:46 to be answered are, is Planning Commission
33:48 the correct citizen group
33:50 to make recommendations to us on this?
33:55 And then the second one is,
33:56 do we want to keep it as shell
34:00 unless they are not contiguous or compact or bounded?
34:03 You know, certainly I'm in favor of politicians
34:09 not drawing their own district.
34:10 So I want to find a solution here.
34:12 But I do think another option is
34:15 how the Civil Service Commission language
34:18 is written around salary recommendations
34:22 that they would go into effect
34:24 unless council takes other action.
34:28 And we could say that council can only take other action
34:34 or if council were to take other action
34:37 the districts would still need to be
34:40 contiguous and compact and all those sorts of things.
34:43 So that's a thought as well as sort of flipping it saying
34:49 it shall go into effect unless we take action.
34:56 And then also on the question of Planning Commission
34:59 or a different group.
35:00 Yeah, I think part of this is
35:03 the more I've thought about this,
35:04 because this is hard.
35:06 This is probably why no one's ever done it, right?
35:08 Well, we just kept it by resolution or ordinance.
35:13 The most accountable people in the city
35:17 are the nine elected officials in this city.
35:22 The mayor, the judge, and us.
35:26 We have to go out every two or four years
35:28 and justify why we deserve our positions, right?
35:37 we have other people on this council
35:38 who've served on other boards and commissions.
35:40 I've served on Planning Commission.
35:41 It's in my, at least if past is an indicator of future,
35:46 it's pretty apolitical.
35:49 It's kind of more wonky than anything else
35:51 unless kind of driven by some desire
35:55 to get someone on something.
35:57 That doesn't mean that that will not be the case
36:00 in 10, 20, 30 years.
36:01 I don't know, right?
36:03 And we're trying to look through.
36:06 But I do think that ultimately,
36:09 if we don't accept their, right,
36:11 if a future council doesn't accept
36:12 the Planning Commission recommendation,
36:14 they better say why.
36:18 And if they don't, they can be voted out, right?
36:20 Those people who voted for that.
36:22 So that's where I'm,
36:23 I almost view this as like a separation of power thing.
36:26 Like I, if there's an entity that's gonna be
36:29 making a vote that is controversial
36:32 or that affects how residents in this city
36:38 are represented, it should be this body
36:40 and not Planning Commission.
36:42 Although I do think that Planning Commission's
36:44 recommendation, and Director Vargo said
36:48 they're volunteers, they are,
36:49 but they're highly skilled volunteers
36:50 that, you know, have good experience.
36:52 Now others could be good too,
36:54 and perhaps I'm myopic
36:56 because I served on Planning Commission.
36:59 But I think I'm less comfortable with,
37:04 we might not be here when this comes up, right?
37:06 These seats aren't ours.
37:07 We're just sitting in them for the time being
37:09 and doing our best to represent the folks
37:13 But I do think that it should be this body's decision.
37:17 That's kind of where I'm landing
37:18 as we talk through this.
37:19 But, and justify it if we don't agree
37:24 with what Planning Commission gives us.
37:28 Other council members?
37:36 Okay, just listening to the feedback,
37:40 two thoughts would be, so rather than attempt to,
37:44 I would hope socioeconomic diversity
37:46 is not excessively subjective.
37:49 There's a lot of professional data out there
37:53 I think maybe, Law Director, your point is
37:56 you're thinking ahead about
38:01 ammo against frivolous lawsuits
38:03 or litigious actors,
38:06 and so you'd rather have clearer terms
38:10 than not clearer terms as a general rule.
38:13 One way that could be gotten would be
38:15 you could just require that all four
38:17 of the proposed wards each have
38:19 a northern boundary on the lake.
38:22 That's not gonna change, not significantly.
38:25 Maybe it creeps southwards a few feet,
38:28 hopefully not too many, over a decade.
38:30 And then you could basically define
38:35 in geographic-shaped terms
38:38 that there's a requirement that it's bounded
38:42 on the north by the lake
38:43 and on the south by the southern border of the city.
38:46 So really all that would be in play
38:49 would be the east-west boundaries.
38:54 Instead of the socioeconomic diversity.
38:58 Question for Councilman Baker is
39:01 what you're saying, essentially,
39:02 if we change or soften the council shall
39:07 to council will duly consider
39:09 or council may adopt,
39:10 then that puts the discretion back here.
39:16 And then the proposed checks and balances
39:19 is the voters know who to hold accountable.
39:25 Of course, gerrymandered voters don't.
39:28 But the geography of Lakewood is a lot more,
39:34 okay, I won't say never.
39:36 But there seems to be less scope for mischief
39:40 here than across greater metro.
39:46 Yeah, I mean, I think the point is, right,
39:48 so we're in this situation currently
39:52 at the state and federal level
39:53 where gerrymandered voters don't have the opportunity
39:56 to hold their elected accountable
39:57 because they've been gerrymandered.
39:59 So I do think that's much less likely to happen here.
40:05 It hasn't happened.
40:06 The districts have been drawn since 1971.
40:10 They're contiguous, compact.
40:13 So they're just slightly off in population currently.
40:17 So I do think it's less likely to happen here,
40:20 but it is a fair point.
40:22 So I guess that's where trying to do both here
40:28 is I'm thinking of if we were to tweak this language
40:32 so it was civil, like I said,
40:36 similar to how the Civil Service Commission's
40:38 recommendations are.
40:39 So when they make their recommendations
40:41 to us about salaries,
40:44 if council takes no action,
40:45 they go into effect as though we had.
40:47 But council still has the opportunity to take action.
40:49 So that would essentially be
40:53 if they make a redistricting recommendation
40:55 and we're like, yes, that all makes sense, great.
40:58 And we don't do anything, it happens.
41:00 And if we're like, oh, that's actually not better
41:04 and we wanna tweak it and here's how,
41:07 then I think I would still want some language in there
41:12 that if we tweak it, they still have to be contiguous
41:16 and compact and all those sorts of things.
41:17 So we could tweak it, but not draw the snake on the lake
41:23 or anything like that.
41:26 Any, how does, I'm seeing a lot of nods.
41:29 Any feedback on that suggestion, Vice President Baker?
41:32 Yeah, I like that because I guess I'm right.
41:34 And this is the problem with crafting
41:36 what is essentially our constitution, right?
41:38 Is that you wanna be,
41:42 you wanna see through the future as much as you can
41:45 to see what may possibly happen.
41:49 And I just, you know,
41:51 cause I think there are reasonable minds could disagree.
41:55 Planning commission could say,
41:57 this is contiguous, compact, keeps streets together.
42:00 And council could say no and have a map
42:03 that also is contiguous, compact
42:04 and keeps streets together, right?
42:06 So, and then it's just a question of like,
42:08 which body should have more authority?
42:11 I think the more accountable body should have authority.
42:13 So I think, which is city council.
42:17 And so I think what you've described
42:19 would be a good way to do it.
42:22 And I think if we had, you know, maybe,
42:25 you know, myself on a Word document
42:27 or council president on a Word document for a half hour,
42:29 we could come up with that
42:31 for consideration for our colleagues.
42:36 Okay, any other feedback on that idea?
42:40 Anyone horribly opposed to that idea?
42:44 Okay, I'm getting a, okay, all right.
42:47 So let's, I'm gonna,
42:51 let's go ahead and just keep this in committee for now
42:53 and we'll probably have a substitute in the near future.
42:58 Maybe ask the law department for some help with that.
43:01 Any concerns from the law department
43:03 about what we're describing?
43:08 All right, that sounds good.
43:09 All right, so then let's move on
43:15 so we still have all the other charter ordinances.
43:18 Those will be, we're planning to discuss
43:21 at the next committee of the whole.
43:24 So please review those before then,
43:26 but they're not on the docket for tonight.
43:28 So our next item is the litigation update
43:34 from the law department.
43:36 And so I think you have the,
43:41 so I don't have the language up here, right?
43:54 I will make a motion to go into executive session
43:56 to discuss threatened and pending litigation.
43:59 Second, motion's been made and second,
44:01 oh, and let's, can we include in that motion
44:04 the council staff and obviously the law department?
44:07 Okay, all right, motion's been made and seconded.
44:13 Madam Chair, discussion?
44:15 I have to excuse myself for this portion of the meeting,
44:17 so I'll abstain from the vote
44:19 and also not attend the executive session,
44:21 but I'll be back for a full council, thank you.
44:25 All right, I'm gonna just go down the line.
44:26 So Bixenstein, yes or no for executive session?
1:26:38 All right, Committee of the Whole
1:26:40 is now exited executive session.
1:26:42 Without objection, Committee of the Whole is adjourned.
1:26:44 We'll start full council in just a few minutes.