where we make the final decision on a map so that we can spend the remainder of the time focused on the report itself. >> reactions? >> i have a couple of comments, and the one thing i am mindful of, summarizing the public comment, one for legal reasons. have a primary issue being that although i would appreciate a summary of public comment from the last half force, i think that over time, i would have different opinions about the information and about the neighborhoods. i have enjoyed the public comment process and learning how the city has changed. i think it is important not to

set an expectation that this is a big issue here. i think that similarly, we open ourselves to a lot of criticism and debate by summarizing and highlighting particular areas. it is inevitable that a certain amount of judgment comes in. we do have a number of public comments, both in the minutes, and in the submissions. as a whole, i am personally not in favor of that. i would be very mindful of having an overall length he report. i think it is important that everyone provide feedback and i would not want anyone to spend an obscene amount of time editing.

>> i think the paragraph is probably a maximum. actually highlighting different points that were expressed, the pros and cons and the very summarized manner, not giving any judgment. and then the alliance would be the ones that will tell the story. >> i agreed with the official summary point, i want to make that clear. >> so i can also be your feedback, when they have prepared us far, naming actual discussion points of certain neighborhoods within the district, is your feedback you believe it also has a judgment?

>> i think would probably lean toward that. i would be willing to change my mind on how it is drafted. i think it is important for instance, when we talk about process, our effort to really be out in the community, i think that is important. and the things that we looked into, the calling. >> and following up on the comment of the community input processed, it would live within section three.

>> are we going to be addressing how many meetings we have had, like an average number of meetings? and i don't see anything, and i don't have a copy of the outline. are we going to address the other issue? i know it was closed session, but will there be a summary of what we discussed? what we are allowed to put out in the final report? >> the content remains closed unless the task force of the body votes to waive the confidentiality. there is an affirmation, basically what was included on the agenda is public information. >> we don't have to say anything, is the short version.

>> hearing that she is one of the editors, she requested that we have our draft by the fifth, also have a proposal to not include the summary of themes. and finish mapping, i think was. >> i know you were concerned, and what i would like to propose is that we all draft about our neighborhood and have its circulated to all members of the task force, and that we also

have the city attorney look into it for cleansing if there is a need for it. and if we don't feel like including it, we don't included. at that point, if we see the content of the information and in each segment, we include it. first, we need to look at how is written. we think it might be not objective. having that is where your concern is. that would be my suggestion, to include things can't decide if we want to include them. i mean, right things and decide if we want to include them. it would be less paper for us to read, but i don't want to leave

any buddies in put out of this. that would be my suggestion, and i want to vote that we have everything else. i want to move that we have everything in by the fifth. >> may be offering my own twist on the member's suggestion, for background for myself, my own thinking about this whole issue of the pros and cons of articulating some of the rationale, i could get comfortable with limiting it to a paragraph. i think that in the interests of honoring, and to some extent, even if it is in a very abbreviated form, the vast amount of public comment that we

have received and has been essential to the thought process, i have reservations about not including -- taking the approach, in other words, of letting the lions speak for themselves. i think there is a lot of potential value to all the folks, many of whom have dedicated as much time as we have in these proceedings to see at least some record or reference to the comments, and the testimony that they provided. i was going to suggest something before the member made her suggestion, a slightly different approach. instead of having all of us take an attempt at drafting error respect of paragraphs, if one or two of us would be willing to

take that step, and maybe by the next meeting, for us to look out and see how we feel, it can be provided as well. we can see what we think of that general approach, i think it can be a little unwieldy for all nine of us to be taking our own cuts at 11 different descriptions or nine different approaches. if one or two people could make their best attempt, it would be objective and be free of judgment. that could, at least, give us something to consider.

hopefully, it won't be too hard for each of us if we consider to turnaround. i am being little long-winded. >> the only thing i was going add to that is that we have to be mindful, to the extent that anything is written, be mindful of the goal that we have had certainly to preserve the communities of interest. we have also been questioned over time as to what it means, so that when you call out a particular district, you are inevitably calling out that you are preserving some and breaking up others. to receive legal advisor this point, it is open to interpretation. >> i certainly see the points of

member lee and a member to the well. i still want to ask, for the question, if any of you here would agree that the profile is the best time to finalize that. that way, we have a nice cushion of time to provide a thorough and well-thought out report by april 14. we put that out again. >> i have a friendly amendment to that. i think that the original suggestion that you have proposed to do what ever written

information would be developed by the fifth would be contingent on the possibility that there would be some changes and it is not the final draft. it might be something to look at. i would like for us to think about the night as our final time to look at maps a taken additional changes. >> in terms of the day, i agree that we should get close to final. i do want to be mindful of that i don't think we should

finalize the map until we have finalized the report. >> i of think anybody expected today to have a significant comment. we should get to closing of the big issues, at least, for us. >> given this discussion, i think we have evolved them out to a pretty great degree. i think that we need to put substantial work on the text in the next week. i don't know what the best word is, i guess i am uncomfortable evidence of what this agreement with member to well above the level of detail.

given all the comment that we have heard, i think we need to document the outreach effort we have made over this time and make sure that we give some flavor of the district and the comments that we have gotten, i think it is important not to just reference to the minutes. i gathered that there is some disagreement about how much detail. i am thinking something more than just a couple of pages. i am wondering if we can take a moment to ask counsel, and we talked about this some time back, the minimum requirements. i guess there is not much?

also, she mentioned the final report in some options about what to include their. >> i guess i am stepping back and looking back at if i am outsider, i would really like to learn the process of the taskforce. a look at the story, and i understand making judgments. i know that this is not something that other groups have faced on how to write the story, the narrative, and the report. at the same time, also, the reader will be able to understand what we have done, what we have been through, what were the issues raised.

and so i just want us to be able to -- it is hard for us to write tickets. there are editors and ghost writers, but i want to make sure that we are able to put live to the report. looking at the previous reports, i didn't feel what they went through. i felt that we had very our own process, and i didn't really get what was going got. i got more information from the public. not that we will put that in, but i feel like whoever would be writing this, we have to make sure it captions -- captures it. >> they started writing a

process on section three. >> we are cleaning it up too much. >> to speak to the member, there is really no minimum required work product except for the file district lines. we would advise that the task force considered including the following information for each district. the population from the demographic information, a list of communities of interest, any finding that, regarding compactness. the recommendation would be that the final report reflect some of the task force's reasoning, to the extent that there are questions about how the phrase

things, we are always available. and if you write of summaries or paragraphs for each district, hill 3 contract -- and feel free to contact john or i. i want to revive the members of the taskforce as you're working on your final report that the rule permitting you to go to 5% is to preserve recognized neighborhoods, not communities of interest. be mindful of that. as you are starting to work with documents and share documents with each other, it is important that any members of the task force are available to the public, if is available to the public and not to take to

come to meetings and hand out documents without making copies available to the public. finally, you can't delegate work to more than one member of the task force. as you were thinking of different pieces that you might delegate, delegate to one person and the person can request help from other individuals so long as it is not a quorum. and finally i just want to remind you, the agendas have to be posted 72 hours in advance. is the best practice to include all information that will be discussed. it is probably not going to be possible given some of the tight deadlines. anything you have that you know will be discussed in the meeting has to be included in the agenda packet. materials that are not -- the

first time you have something, give it to the clerk. >> can i ask you to repeat the items you set for each district? >> population and a variation, a relevant and demographic information, a list of recognized neighborhoods, i think that is really key. communities of interest as applicable. any specific findings regarding continuity. the san diego redistricting taskforce has a really good model about how to do that. it urges us to review it and i consent to the length. >> can i follow up on that? he said if we make specific

findings, so we got necessarily have to -- >> you don't have to make those findings, but when we started this process, people said, district 5, house and possibly contiguous or compact? if there is something that you feel needs explanation. >> can you repeat the 5% rule? >> be task force can only have population variations of up to 5% to preserve recognized and neighborhoods. separately, the task force should be mindful of community's interest in drawing district boundaries that reflect that, but you don't get to go to 5% because of the community of interest, only because you're preserving a recognized neighborhood. >> is the commission a community of interest or recognized

neighborhood? >> recognized neighborhoods, i would urge you to think about the maps that you received from the planning department at the elections department. you are not bound to those boundaries. you could say, we think he recognized neighborhood is different based on public testimony. there is an argument for the mission being a recognized neighborhood in one sense and community of interest in another sense. >> be have any additions for this discussion, specifically around the summary of things like input and what we continue to include related to the state commission and their approach?

>> i sent a link to the final report. you can take a look at it, and to see that the riding has been divvied the, you see that kind of changes a little bit from district to district. in general, they had the summary reports that they attached, essentially. it is basically just general population. that is something you may want to add as an appendix. we can talk to the city attorney about what would be the most appropriate in this particular context. aside from that, i don't have

anything can add at this moment. >> we have a couple of proposals that have been raised by taskforce members. i want to work through those. he won was raised, having a draft for the report and the different pieces done by april 5. we also want to be mindful of what it might mean for the ministration procedures, while we would need to get that to the public. >> can i make a comment about that? i would propose that we plan to take the approach in distributing copies of that type of document at the meeting.

if we are intending to discuss the of april 4, we state explicitly that we plan to distribute copies at that meeting. otherwise, if it is to be included in the agenda packet, it would be needed done by tomorrow, right? i don't think that is feasible. if it is by the fifth, it would need to be monday. >> for clarification, -- >> the important thing is that it is available to the public the same time it is available to the task force. send it to the clerk in advance of the meeting, and she can make copies for the public and for

members of the task force, so everyone looks of the document at the same time. >> if it is for the fourth, and e-mail it to me by 330 of 4:00. and i can make copies and get it ready. >> we have a proposal, then? >> the proposal is about our draft, all of our pieces. they are available for the meeting on the fifth. they need to be sent to the clerk but the fourth. the way she can put the pieces together and make documents available to the public. that will be our draft to begin to edit.

>> that as a draft of the entire report, not just a summary of the public comment? >> the entire report. >> id is a friendly amendment, my suggestion is that we have is -- i guess it doesn't meteatr either way. >> we're all sort of working through this. i envisioned the agenda for the next five meetings to be somewhat similar. at a minimum, i think, for the next meeting, we should include the outline that we had last

time, that wasn't in the package tonight. and there are extra copies for the public. and anything else anyone has created by tomorrow. it can be put in the packet. if there is anything further to hand out at a meeting wednesday, we will hand it out at that time. i want to encourage us all to do some writing in the next few days. >> my motion is that we all get our pieces in. our draft pieces, not the finals, but the fourth, to the clerk, so she can put it together as a document to be seen by all of us and the public as our first draft of the

fifth. that way we can take that document, turn it around and be able to give in the back to you by the ninth. that way you are able to read the draft. ok? that is what i am proposing. >> i will second of that. -- second that. >> i think that's fine. >> i'm just wondering if it makes sense to move the deadline to tuesday so that we can get copies of whatever is that the meeting -- is at the meeting. >> i'm fine with that. >> as it s