therefore not attributed to any one member to representing the whole. yes, mr. shriber? >> thank you. i wanted to point out i did submit an individual submission but it was folded into the recommendations and editing process and i'm fine with that. >> thank you. >> i didn't know after we did it. >> mr. leigh? >> anything else before we go back to the top. >> with the report as a general top snick >> yes, please. >> the only other question that i have just a couple of logistical issues but i just wanted to make sure somebody had been thinking about how to pull all of this together. so first of all the appendsies that are referenced, as the map themselves and draft map thmselves and that submitted by the public, public community, community newspaper, advertisement, don't believe member melara nor i have made any attempt to compile or gather those materials. so just being conscious of our

deadline, that's the question i would raise. >> sure. madam clerk? >> ok. i'm finally getting there. i can't talk anymore. the working draft map i can supply copies of that. the map submitted by the public, city wide map, we can -- i can work with and make sure i get the right ones attached. public comment, i'm not really clear on what you would want covered. >> the documents from from my point of view, the documents that u.p.f. then sent to us. they simply get printed and they're an appendix. >> so i have them individually with each 30 meetings and separate separate them out and put them in one stack? there were over 1,000 e-mails. >> miss tidwell. >> i just wanted a clarification point in that nothing changes about the public file, so i think it's the goal is to keep them in the public file. that certainly is -- i would recommend excluding the public

comment and leaving it in the public file. >> anybody object to that? >> no. just make a note in the report that they are available. >> very good. madam clerk, on the community newspaper advertisement. >> i have a copy of the tear-outs and i can work with mondejar to make sure it gets in there. when you were talking about a note where you can access the files, maybe it might be advisable to put somewhere in the report, not to call kay. >> no longer, any longer? >> where you would put it would be, i talked to john arnts while we're on the subject and he agreed to be the archivist of all of the files. they will be there in a month. probably i have everything turned over to them. so some reference to the department of elections. >> you got that? >> yes. very good. miss mondejar and -- i'm sorry, mr. pilpel. >> i would just like to go back to the individual submissions.

that we -- i would just like the chair to ask members to vote because she submitted comments, i think and i remember seeing that. >> i did submit but i -- i think it was one of my was due politic tive of the community outreach component and the other one was just a process point about responding to public comment during meetings. >> i think i remember seeing it. and i think we were copied that. thank you. >> so i don't have a particular concern oz to whether i need to include for purposes of moving quicker, sooner rather. >> thank you. anyone else? mr. leigh? >> so just a couple of other things. first of all, member alanso's asking me a question which i think is a good question of whether the initial vizzization should be included among the appendsies or fass task force draft maps. i don't think contemplated as

part of how this was drafted but something for us to consider. >> the question is whether to include vezzulizations. my point of view before opening it up is again, to, miss tidwell's last point about the public comment, they will be a part of the archive record. we did not post them as potential drafts. there was our initial request to the consultants so we could appreciate the implications of several different options, which why we had 11 to begin with. my point of view would they not be included but be part of the archive that gets reference and people can visit them if they would like to. >> ok. then just a couple of other thoughts about things that aren't addressed specifically in the language of the report, but one is the final map itself. how should we incorporate that? should that just sort of be the first item or should it be referred to as an appendix or what have you? along the similar line, district descriptions, meets and bounds.

again, we didn't make a specific reference in the report. i guess we just sort of thought they would obviously be necessary components of our time work product but there is not a specific reference in the report should those documents. >> as point of information, meets and bounds will be published in the city charter. so they will be available there. you can refer to the charter in the report. >> thank you. and then the last point which i think we've discussed in this item under task force report but i don't know if we landed on anything, which is the question of the traa 'tis ticks, type of statistics that were included in the 2002 report, i don't know that we've attempted to create those but i just did want to point out that they were included in the 2002 report

district statistics, various sub populations and the like, as well as individual district maps. so that's it. ok. thank you. >> mr. pilpel? >> several thoughts based on that if i might. in terms of the appendsies, we're not doing public comment? >> that is correct. >> i'm not sure -- i agree with not including the visualizations. i'm not sure including the draft maps is actually that helpful. there are some who believe that that shows some evolution in the thinking. i think it in some ways distracts from the final map that was adopted because that's the only map that mattered. so i'm inclined to not ininclude either the draft working map that's we evolved or the map submitted by the public. i think the report is really

what we ultimately do and we can reference that maybe the discussion, and then i have a couple other points. >> i want to check them out so we don't have to redo them. first one, task force draft reports. miss tidwell? >> i kind of agree with member pilpel. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes, i agree. >> you agree. ok. mr. mondejar? >> i agree. >> miss lam? >> yes. >> miss melara? mr. leigh? >> to make sure i understand, this is to not include any of our draft map? >> i agree. >> mr. alanso? >> yes. >> number one does not get included either. second point then, maps submitted by the public. >> mr. chair, just to let you know, a followup from the department of elections that the website will all be in psychiatristance for 10 years and it will be ssgrdtv and working maps are all available on the website also.

we can reference. it will be there for anybody who wants to see it. sorry. >> that's ok, thank you. maps submitted by the public. mr. alanso, in or out? >> out. >> mr. leigh? >> out with the possibility -- i think this is the suggestion i would make just based on what madam clerk has said is that we have two sentences tend of this, one referring to the public file and one referring to the website and in the second sentence referring to the website, explicitly mention working map drafts as well as maps submitted by the public will be available 10 years on the website with the url. >> is it accurate then to infur that maybe you or others would like to see almost a table of contents-ish. why call the entirety of our

proceedings will be on the website. is there a particular reason why you want to call out either the maps submitted by the public or draft maps as opposed to anything else, minutes, the agendas, the -- everything else that will be available. >> well, i think -- i guess where i would like to include reference to the public maps is just out of respect for the time that people spent in developing those maps and acknowledging that. >> ok. miss melara? >> not include them. >> out, ok. >> miss lam? >> not to include but agreeing that -- noting around that all rdtf proceedings will remain on the elections task website. >> thank you. miss mondejar? >> a clarification. when you said public maps submitted by the public, you're talking about only city wide? >> only city wide. >> not district maps. >> not district maps. >> so not included but with a

reference to the website? >> mr. pilpel? >> ditto. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes, reference only. >> miss tidwell? >> yes, i would just clarify that since we're already making edits to the process section in part four that we just clarify there we're adding potentially the 100 hours in statistics we just clarified there. >> agreed. ok. so at this point that means the only thing noted in the appendsies is community newspaper advertisements. ok. mr. pilpel. >> although we reduced it to that, i would add back in the appendsies the final map. i think that's where it goes, appendix one. i would add as an additional appendix if it's possible to print out the individual 11 district maps that blow up a little better, if it's possible. if not, then not. and the district descriptions, even if it's not the formal

meets and bounds, even if it's just the document that -- this document. >> yes. >> and the statistic and whatever statistic, we agree. i think all of those things are appropriate for appendsies, not the body of the report but should be referenced in the body of the report. that's at least one, two, three, four, possibly five appendsies. >> thank you. >> can i make an additional comment. >> you may. >> in terms of the recognized neighborhoods which we have as part four, i think that goes wherever we decide to put the map statistics is where the preservation of the deviating from 1% to 5% should also reside. if part five is actually final map statistics, recognized neighborhoods preserved, then that should be that section as

opposed to. >> so i guess the point of distinction, his description is different than preserved? >> right. >> his description is what -- >> i think it's similar to what member pilpel is saying, the final section, would i envision at least is the first part is all of our talk, part five is what we're legally required to submit. which is the map. and the statistics and recognized neighborhoods from moving one to five and whatever else falls into that category. >> ok. any other comments? yes, map. >> i just wanted a clarification when you're talking about statistics, what exactly is that contemplate something >> there are three african-americans and two asians -- >> i thought something in the san diego report suggested we needed to do a statistical breakdown of some of districts or no? >> that's not legally required. it's certainly an option. >> ok. anything else before we go back to the top?

so here's what i propose. going back to the top, we are -- i would like to be able to reach agreement and move by category, not by sentence, not by paragraph, but by category, because unless there are factual errors, we're not looking for preferences on how you would like to see it said but the facts are correct, then the facts are correct. don't want to dispute, well, we could have been more articulate this way or that. that may be true. but for purposes of again, representing our proceedings, representing decisions being made, i would like us to err on facts rather than preference of speech. >> can i ask a clarification, who's going to do that? are we doing editing? >> i was going to come to that in a moment. we have a couple of options, one of which is member leigh has

agreed to be at laptop and making edits as we go. i suggest we do that so it's being captured as we do it so when we get to the end, we don't have to then incorporate changes into some document somewhere else. i think it gives us the opportunity to review it as we do continue then gives us the opportunity to make a time decision and vote. any objection? >> that one needs to be replaced on the laptop with what you added later or no? with my district stuff or -- >> the question is what's available to member leigh on the laptop is the most current version. >> that's right. but it doesn't include your sum are i to districts one through four. >> let's look into it. >> i can put that in. >> i will go first. and then you can switch with me. >> ok. miss tidwell will edit first. and are you --

>> we can share editing. >> sure. are you offering to edit because you're assuming that we're going to go to the section where -- left out. >> i will start editing and somebody can put just me and i will type in my. >> we can do both at the same time. >> excellent. we're on page 1, the introduction. againthere, have been no changed to any of the drafts. i presume we can move forward. yes? >> i didn't -- whatever, we're here. if we have changes we need to articulate those now? >> now. >> if we have grammatical changes, should we not have them? what do you want us to do on that? >> this is about content and we're going to leave final grammatical review to -- no. we should finalize it now. >> otherwise you're putting us in the position of deciding what's grammatical and what's

substantive. the recommendation -- >> you people are -- here's my problem. even issues of grammatical correctness are debatable. >> yes. >> so i don't want to spend more than that much time on debating that. and we cannot go line by line. i'm sure you have grammatical corrections almost line by line, which is fine. but that's not the best use of our time. here's -- >> here's what i would subject. i suggest we go through for substance, have any suggested corrections that are substantive now, take another break at some point and offer any grammatical changes to whoever is going to agree to look at those in short order and make some fast decisions about include or not. and we may not need to see the answer on those as long as there as opportunity to submit that.

>> i was going to say for purposes of moving forward -- >> we're not on the mic. hold on. we need you on mic. can we get her on mic, please. >> it was on, yep. >> hello. >> there you go. >> i was just going to say since it's 3:30 that we stick solely with factual discrepancies, substance is also, it is a question and so i think for moving forward and not staying here until midnight, we should just focus on a factual correction. i think the only thing we all seem to agree on was second on page four around adding some things but we can even get there when we get there. >> thank you for that. so we will begin with, again, going section by section.

you will offer any substantive there. section one, anything to offer? >> after sense us date i would add april 1, 2010 in parens. and after that i would add adopted july, insert date, 2011 to reference the date that the board adopted the legislation creating the task force. those are factual and substance. >> did you catch those? >> i have them. after date in parenthesis april 1, 2010, line three. >> ok. and down on the second to the

last line after task force by legislation adopted 2011, adopted by the board of supervisors, 2011. >> and we'll find the dates on that. >> so we don't have a date? >> it's july something. >> so i would move that we don't include that. >> ok, so here we go. we're going to have to vote on each one. that's the only way we can determine that he's been skherd whether or not we agree wilt. on the question of whether or not he go back and determine what the date was, mr. alons snowe >> sure. >> sure what? yes or no. >> yes. >> yes what, in? >> in >> mr. leigh? >> i'd say only if we can find the data -- date while we're doing this editing process. i don't think we should extend this

>> miss mondejar? >> yes, if we can find it before we leave today. >> let's just find it. >> it's the task force legislation approved by the board of supervisorses? >> adopted by july blank throvepb carry out the required redistricting. >> north carolina >> no, he wants it in the prior sentence. ms. tidwell. >> in the board of supervisors convene the redistricting task force. that's where he wants it? >> yes. >> dear lord. >> after that, closed parenthesis by legislation adopted by july blank 2011 go back to where it was to carry

out required redistricting. no other changes. >> you good ms. tidwell? >> uh-huh. >> ok, section a, charter provisions. section b, composition of task force? >> i would retitle this task force composition officers and staff and i would re-order the first three sentences in the order that the appointments were made, the elections commission appointed the three named members and i think we can also get those dates. otherwise the rest of -- >> no, no. it has nothing -- >> hold on. >> i'll be the one to lead the debates, please. we could either include the dates or not but i was trying to -- >> two ideas, re-order and add dates. mr. alonso? in or out? >> out.

mr. leigh? >> no. >> mr. manned harr? >> no. >> ms. tidwell. >> no. >> ok, next. >> on the recaptioning of the section, i would like toe change the caption because i think it is important to refer to the staff. >> ok, so the proposal is? >> task force composition officers and staff. >> you get that, ms. tidwell? >> uh-huh. >> any snokse moving then. anything else in section b? >> what i took from the last vote was not to include the dates. could we re-order it? just the three sentences so that they're in the order of the selections. that would be the election commission, the board of supervisors and the mayor. >> why? if there are no dates, no one

will have an appreciation other than you. >> because that tracks with the later -- >> ok, we're not going to debate it. that's all. >> about the history. >> great. thank you. mr. alonso? >> out. >> mr. leigh? >> no. >> ms. mondejar. >> no. >> mr. schreiber? >> no. >> ms. tidwell? >> no. >> ok, next. >> and to be replace technical advice, i would replace that with technical assistance. >> which line? >> just the line before the end. >> because? >> i think we received technical assistance more so than technical advice. we also received advice, granted but it was technical assistance. i just think it's more descriptive, that's all. >> ok, so again, if we have

this discussion over speech, we could be here all day. it's not that it isn't worth -- >> i didn't see this until last night and i didn't have an opportunity to review it until now and we're being asked to vote on this, so -- >> excuse me, you're saying you didn't get the first draft? >> none of this was changed. >> this has been in the draft from the beginning. >> the earlier draft had yellow all over the place. i thought that was a working draft that was in process. >> ok, we're here now. thank you. what we don't have time or interest in doing is debating speech. what we want to focus on is fact and content. not whether it should be advice or consultation because i think

we can agree we got some of both and we can't go line by line doing that >> that was all i had in that section. >> we cannot go line by line doing that and i don't want to have to take another 50 votes just to determine whether or not we go from advice to consultation. that won't work. let's proceed. anything else in section b? moving into section two, criteria. >> i have two -- >> yes, ms. tidwell. >> i would suggest we verify the numbers of 706 and 3531 based on if that's the 2002 numbers -- >> that was more than >> let mer -- her finish, please. thank you. >> or update those for the existing sentence, which should be slightly different. >> ok, and either ms. leigh or

if you have snose thank you. >> the numbers or 732 and 3660 for 2010. >> anything else in the cree tierra section? >> yes, there are three instances where redistricting is in here and i would suggest striking that because we've said on page one task force. simplifies the language. >> no? it's not factically incorrect. >> oh, it says on page one -- >> we're not going to debate it. let's just vote. mr. alonso? >> no. >> mr. leigh? >> no. >> ms. melara? >> no. >> ms. mondejar? >> no. >> ms. lam? >> no. >> mr. schreiber?

>> no. >> ms. tidwell? >> no. >> anything else in criteria section? page three. the continuance of the criteria section. make sure you didn't overlook anything. ok, thank you. moving into page four, section 3. description of redistricting task force process. ms. lam? >> i just wanted to be able to add that the task force had received more than 1,000 written and oral testimony? >> where? >> i'm sorry, second paragraph. page 4. >> sorry, i have the task force of over 1,000 written in oral

testimony or public comment. >> i'm sorry, and 300 what? >> [inaudible] >> can you include that in? ok. madam clerk state what you just said. >> to add in over 300 public comments submitted at meetings and member lam with 1,000 emails via the email public comment. >> so do we want to just change it from 1,000 1,300? >> yes. >> good. >> i want you to know that you've been working hard. >> thank you. >> just for clarification, the 00 hours of meeting time that member leigh had raised? >> my suggestion was at the end of the first sentence in the third paragraph, beginning to accomplish -- >> sorry, where? >> the third paragraph that

begins "to accomplish" the end of that sentence after the word "each" just add a comma. >> i'm totally slow today. tubs third paragraph "-- >> no, that's not the third. the end of that sentence. approximately two to five hours each, totaling approximately 100 hours. >> and i would just suggest we change the five to seven and a half. >> thank you. >> we broke the record. >> that was the 1:00 a.m. thank you. ms. lam, anything else? >> no. >> thank you. anyone else? description. >> sorry. i was just going to add -- i thought it was appropriate to add at the end of that same paragraph, to accomplish these tasks, all public comment can be found in the public file located in the department of