Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-2001 Meeting REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE COMMISSION CHAMBER MEETING November 21, 2001 The Redistricting Committee met on November 21, 2001. Present from the Augusta Richmond County Commission were Ulmer Bridges, Bill Kuhlke, Lee Beard, Jerry Brigham, Richard Colclough and Willie Mays. Present from the Richmond County Board of Education were Mr. Hatney, Ms. Minchew, Ms. Padgett and Mr. Myers. Present from the Legislative Delegation were Mr. DeLoach, Mr. Cheeks, Mr. Allen and Mr. Howard. Present from the Board of Elections was Lynn Bailey. Also present were Jim Wall, Commission Attorney; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission; and Pete Fletcher, School Board Attorney. Mr. Kuhlke: Ladies and gentlemen, we’ll go ahead and call the Redistricting meeting to order. I appreciate everybody showing up. I think the only two that we’re missing at this point is Rep. Howard and Commissioner Mays. You were given the minutes of our last meeting. They are pretty lengthy. I’m sure everybody has read them. Any comment regarding those minutes? If not, I’ll entertain a motion that we approve the minutes of our last meeting. Mr. Speaker: So moved. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Everybody in favor, just raise your hand. That will do. Anybody opposed? Okay. Thank you. Ms. Bailey, I think that the -- you’ve got the agenda in front of you. What we’re going to do this morning is we’re going to review the map that was developed by the Committee for Progress and we’ll go through it very similar to what we did the map that Ms. Bailey had at our last meeting. Following that, what we will do is to take both maps and look at the population, the deviations, the ratios and so forth of both maps. And I think at that point, we’re at a point that we should go ahead and see whether the good points of both maps or the bad points of both maps, make a decision of whether we are going to try to utilize both maps to come up with something that looks attractive to us, or discard one of the maps and concentrate strictly on one. So, Ms. Bailey, I’ll turn it over to you and you can handle it. 1 Ms. Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Good morning. If you’ll recall, when we started this process you were originally provided with copies of three plans. The first one was the existing Commission Districts, the second one was the plan drawn by the Legislative Reapportionment Office, and the third -- as Mr. Kuhlke said -- was the plan developed by the Citizens Committee for Progress. After last week’s meeting -- well, actually prior to last week’s meeting, the Citizens Committee for Progress realized that they had computed their deviation on voting age population, and when they went back and recomputed that on total population, their deviations were out of the range. They were greater than +5%. And so they went in and made some changes to their plan, and you have those revisions in your packet and that’s the plan that we will go over now. Mr. Bridges: Is that under the O tab? Ms. Bailey: Let’s see. That’s under -- it’s under -- the revised plan is under Tab P, as in Paul. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Ms. Bailey: And it also -- it’s helpful to me, when I look at these plans, to get out my existing Commission Districts and have them kind of side-by-side and it may be helpful to you as well. You have detailed maps of the existing Districts under section K in your notebook. And while you’re flipping through, I might call your attention also under your Tab F, you have the population summary reports that are going to show you the total deviations by District. That might also be helpful to have out and accessible to you. The plan that we are looking at first on your population summary report is called Committee for Progress Revision 1. And that’s under your Tab F. Mr. Kuhlke: Lynn, at the same time, under Tab F, if we’re going to be looking at the existing Districts, which one on the population summary -- is that the existing Commission Districts, that’s where it’s headed? Ms. Bailey: Yes, sir, it is. Under that same Tab F, there is another report entitled Existing Commission Districts and that will show you what the Districts look like right not. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Ms. Bailey: Okay, are we ready? 2 Mr. Kuhlke: Everybody found those? Ms. Bailey: Okay. We’ll start off with District 1, and what I will do is take you through in a similar fashion as we proceeded last week, going District by District, pointing out areas that have changed from the existing Commission lines and pointing out any problems generally that exist with the Districts. Okay. Starting with District 1. The major changes on this plan -- over on the east side -- now District 1 is the peach-colored district there. Over on the east side, there -- it is now green there -- that former Precinct 13 -- and that’s the people that voted at Eastview Center. In this plan, that precinct has been drawn out of District 1. Also drawn out of District 1 going over to the far west of that district, you have Precincts 26, which are the people that vote at Lake Park Church, and Precinct 25A, and that’s part of the voters that vote at Julian Smith. Both of those precincts were formerly in District 1 and have been drawn into District 3. So the areas coming out are the Lake Park precinct, the Julian Smith precinct, and the East View precinct. Areas that go into this District -- areas coming into this District basically start where the red dot is, just north of that. All of that area from 44 down. All the way, that whole area, that Precinct 7, 36, 45, all of that area there was either in Commission Districts 2 or 5 previously, and they have been drawn into Commission District 1 for this plan. Mr. Beard: Could you identify that area further? Ms. Bailey: Yes, sir, I can. Starting over to the west, Precinct 44. That’s the area that votes at Paine College. Going south from there, Precinct 19. That’s the area that votes at the Glendale Bible Chapel. Precinct 9A is part of the precinct that votes at the Asbury Church on Troupe Street. 24A is the precinct that votes, one of the precincts that votes at Johnson Center. Just south of that is 24B, and that’s the other precinct that votes at Johnson. Precinct 37 is the precinct that votes at Mount Vernon Church. Precinct 7 is the precinct that votes at New Hope Community Center. Precinct 36 is the precinct that votes at Mount Calvary. And 45 votes at Second Mt. Mariah. 18A and B, the two little triangle precincts there, both vote at Gilbert Manor. Now in addition to those entire precincts, you see a little piece of Precinct 9B has been drawn in. Again, that’s a part of the other precinct that votes at Asbury Church. You also see a portion of Precinct 3 drawn in, and that is the precinct that votes at Augusta Deliverance Church on Roosevelt Drive. Any questions about District 1? Okay. Moving on them to District 2. Let me just say, also, referring back to District 1 -- and let me also say, I should have said this from this beginning -- when this plan was drawn, it’s my 3 understanding that it was drawn by this group with economic development and growth being one of their prime objectives. It was drawn as a Commission District map, not a School Board map. It didn’t take into consideration the School Board at all, just the Commission. So as we go through, I’m going to point out to you which incumbents, both Commission and School Board, currently reside in which Districts, and so if we can go back to number one real quick, the incumbents in number one currently for the School Board are Eloise Curtis, and for the Commission, Lee Beard. And that’s District 1. Mr. Kuhlke: Lynn, would it be appropriate to -- Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Eloise Curtis? Ms. Bailey: Well, she’s currently 2, but on this plan she’s draw into 1. With the reconfiguration. Because she lives in -- in fact, she lives where that green dot is right there. That’s where Ms. Curtis lives. So again in this plan she’s drawn into District 1. Mr. Speaker: What impact would that have on the fact that Mr. Barnes and she would be in the same District? Ms. Bailey: We’re going to talk about that in a minute. Mr. Speaker: And I also live in District 1. Ms. Bailey: You do. Now as far as the Super Districts go -- Mr. Speaker: I understand that. Ms. Bailey: I don’t think that it was an issue being out of the District, but we do have some issues and we’ll see as we go through where several current School Board incumbents are drawn into Districts with another School Board incumbent, and those are things that will come out as we go through this plan. Mr. Speaker: That could have been avoided, though, had they included the School Board members when they drew these plans. You know being step-children, that doesn’t make you feel good. Ms. Bailey: I don’t know anything about that. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] go ahead. 4 Ms. Bailey: Okay. District 2. Mr. Kuhlke: Lynn? Ms. Bailey: Yes, sir? Mr. Kuhlke: Excuse me just a minute. What I was going to suggest is that as you go through the Districts, you might go through the population deviation per District, okay? Ms. Bailey: Sure. Okay, going back to District 1, and you’ve got the report there in your supplies, but it shows you -- let’s see. With the Committee for Progress’s plan, the current deviation in District 1 is -.01 percent. The current black population is -- excuse me, not current. This is according to this plan -- the black population is 75.19 and black voting age population is 71.31. Under the existing Commission Districts, School Board Districts, the deviation is -15.93%, black population is 69.28, and voting age population is 64.22. Mr. Bridges: Lynn, do we have one of these for the re-done Committee for Progress? Ms. Bailey: Okay. Moving on to District 2. As I said earlier, that whole Precinct 13 there on the east came out of District 1 and went into District 2. Also going into the District, moving -- you’ve got Precinct 34 which is the precinct that currently votes at Minnick Park. You’ve got the balance of Precinct 3, which again is that precinct that votes at Augusta Deliverance. And you also have parts of Precincts 21A and 21B, and those are the two precincts that vote on Damascus Road at the Aquatics Center. Some of those areas came out District 3. Some came out of District 2. Excuse me, out of 3, out of 5 and out of 1. Now the areas that remained the same in District 2 are Precinct 47, which is -- that’s Mize Memorial Church over off Tubman Home Road. Precinct 6, which is the Bernie Ward Center on Lumpkin Road, and Precinct 29, which votes at the Burns Methodist Church on Lumpkin Road. Those remain the same in District 2. As far as the incumbents in District 2, we have from the School Board, Johnny Hatney, from his Super District seat, and Marion Williams from the Commission. Mr. Hatney: Excuse me. District 2? 5 Ms. Bailey: Well, it’s District 2 where your actual residence is, but you of course are in a Super District which is District 9 comprised of Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5. Mr. Hatney: How do you move east Augusta into District 2? Ms. Bailey: The Committee for Progress, in their plan, they moved that entire precinct out of District 1 into -- Mr. Hatney: That whole precinct? Ms. Bailey: The entire East View precinct in this particular plan was moved out of District 1 into District 2. That whole area, that big area right there is the East View Precinct, and in this particular plan that entire precinct was drawn into District 2, which is the green area there. It was formerly in District 1, which is that peach colored area. Mr. Hatney: And they moved all the folks over? Ms. Bailey: This plan moved that whole loop right there, that whole east end of the county there, over into District 2, with the rest of those people. Mr. Kuhlke: Ms. Bailey, let me sort of speak to the Rev. Hatney. This plan, as well as the plan that we looked at last week, which we’re going to look back at today, these are just starting points to give you some ideas. And so nothing is set in stone. Mr. Hatney: I understand. I understand that. I understand all that, but I just think the whole thing is crazy. You know. To me, whoever thought this up, this was crazy. Mr. Kuhlke: Let me say this. The reason that this didn’t take into consideration the School Board is because according to the charter, the Commission can drawn their own Districts, but the School Board Districts are drawn by the Legislative Delegation. So when this map was done, it was not done for the School Board, but it done more for the County Commission, so that’s the reasoning for this. Mr. Hatney: I hear you. Go ahead. Ms. Bailey: Okay. Just to review the population figures. District 2 currently, under the existing Districts, has a deviation of -22.33%, with a 6 black population of 68.56, and a black voting age population of 65.51. Under this proposed Committee for Progress plan, the deviation is -3%, with a black population of 65.43% and a black voting age population of 60.76%. Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes? Mr. Speaker: I assume someone -- I make the assumption that if someone proposes a reapportionment map at some point in time -- I think Ms. Bailey said that this map was done for economic reasons. The persons who drew this map, will they come before this commission and sort of defend their map, give us some idea as to what was their thinking behind it? Mr. Kuhlke: If that’s what the committee would like, they would be glad to come and do that. Mr. Speaker: Okay. My second thing, Ms. Bailey, when you’re giving percentages, if you could also talk in terms of white percentages, white population, white voting age population, so that we can have some type of comparison, because I think if you don’t give that it may give the impression, give the impression that somehow or another the white population on certain districts aren’t getting a majority of the voting age population or a majority of the [inaudible] in the district, so there can be some kind of comparison. Because when I look at one district, I guess a high percentage of persons in any district, you take a look at two of the majority white districts, they are in the 80% range, while the majority of black districts are in the 60% range, and I just want to make sure that we understand those comparisons. Can you do that? Ms. Bailey: Yes, sir, I can do that. Mr. Hatney: One of the concerns I’ve got with this is that the east Augusta area actually is the strongest voting area in District 1. Percentage wise. It’s the strongest voting area in District 1. Ms. Bailey: And I’m taking it from your comment that -- would you like it -- would you like for me to make a note that that is one objection from you? Mr. Hatney: Yes. Because it weakens District 1. 7 Ms. Bailey: And you would like to see that put back into District 1? Mr. Hatney: It really weakens District 1. If you move the strongest voting bloc out of a district, it weakens that district. Ms. Bailey: All right. Okay. Moving on to District 3. District 3 is going to be the yellow district on the map. Coming out of the former District 3 of the Commission, School Board district. The Precinct 4 that you see there, that precinct was formerly in District 3 and it’s been moved out in this plan. Also move out, going a little bit further south -- now by the way, Precinct 4 currently votes at Bayvale Baptist Church on Bayvale Road. Now going a little further south even still, Precinct 32B was also in District 3, and that was kind of the south end of the old District 3, and those areas have been taken out. Also taken out of the old District 3, if you’ll go west, is the bottom portion there of Precinct 50. Now Precinct 50 votes at the Sue Reynolds Community Center there out in the Belair area. And you can see that that area actually has been split now into three Commission Districts, part of it going into 6, part into 5, and then part remaining in District 3. So those areas have come out of the old District 3. Going into the proposed District 3 with this plan, you have Precinct 14B, which is part of the voters voting at the Augusta State PE Complex on Wrightsboro Road. You have the tail end there right to the west of 11A. That portion right there. That is the tail end of Precinct 52, which is the voters that vote at the Fire Department on Walton Way Extension, that little piece of that precinct that comes out -- or actually, excuse me, has gone in. It came from 7 and went into 3. Also going in District 3, if we’ll move a little further east, if you’ll remember we talked about Precinct 25A coming out of District 1 and Precinct 26 coming out of District 1. Those were both drawn into District 3 in their entirety. Also drawn into District 3 out of Districts 1 and 7 are little pockets of precincts right up around Langford Middle School. We had three little precincts up there, 27A, 27B, and 11A, which were either in Precinct -- in Districts 1 and 7 previously, and those have been drawn into the proposed District 3. Also coming into this district are portions of Precinct 9B. And if you’ll recall we talked earlier that a portion of that precinct was moved into District 1, and the balance of it was moved into District 3. Moving over to the west from there, those are the voters at Asbury Church. Moving to the west from that is Precinct 21A. Those are part of the voters that vote at the Aquatics Center, a portion of whom went into the Second District and a portion went into the Third District, and they were moved from the Fifth into those Districts. In terms of incumbents, the green dot that you see there is 8 Marion Barnes from the Board of Education. The green dot you see there is John Seitz from the Board of Education. They have both -- they are both in that district. The purple triangle you see there is Steve Shepard from the Commission. In terms of population figures, currently District 3 for the Commission, School Board, has a deviation of 6.86%. That is a total black population of 30.52. Total white population of about 69%. Your black voting age population is 28.52. And your white voting age population would be 71.5. And that’s existing. With the changes in this plan, the deviation changes to -.8%, with the black population being at 30.15%, the white population being slightly under 70%, the black population is 26.6%, and the white voting age population would be 73.3%. And that is the proposed District 3. Mr. Kuhlke: Senator Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Lynn, on the two Board members that sit in the same district now, is either of those at-large or are both of those single-member districts? Ms. Bailey: They are both single-member. Mr. Barnes currently represents District 1 and Mr. Seitz currently represents District 3. They are both single-member districts. Mr. Speaker: What about those up in District 7? [inaudible] Are they single-member districts? Ms. Bailey: I believe one of those up there in District 7, one is Ms. Minchew and one is Mr. Echols. One is an at-large and one is single- member. But we do have another conflict in another District with Board of Education that we’ll get to. Mr. Beard: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir? Mr. Beard: Mr. Chairman, in all fairness and I think with the time span that we’re doing this, should we continue looking at this district? Because I don’t think it’s going to fly under any kind of -- Mr. Hatney: [inaudible] plan. 9 Mr. Beard: Any kind of plan. Are we kind of wasting our time by just continuing to do this? I mean we’re talking about we want to mirror districts, and I don’t see anything in this that we’re going to actually get into, and I’m just wondering if we are just kind of wasting our time here. Mr. Kuhlke: Well, that’s a good point, Mr. Beard, and I think probably at this point we can just get a consensus of what the committee thinks. One consideration is whether or not we are going to take the position that we are going to protect all incumbents. If that’s the case, you, Ms. Bailey’s plan has protected all incumbents. If that’s the position that the majority of the committee wants to do, we can then go back to Ms. Bailey’s plan, look at the revisions that she’s made. So it’s up to the committee. Mr. Speaker: My concern is I thought when we met initially we agreed to the mirror approach. That being the case, it would have been a waste of time to deal with this one anyway. We’re wasting time from the beginning if initially we agreed to deal with the mirror approach. This one here doesn’t deal with this and it’s got folk all over the place. Time is one of the most precious commodities in the world. I personally would like to move that we just discontinue this one and go on somewhere else. Mr. Kuhlke: Is that in the form of a motion? Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: Do I have a second? Mr. Speaker: Second. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Okay. Any discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion please raise your hand. Anybody opposed? [inaudible] Lynn, we’ll go ahead and pull that down and I guess go back to your plan. Ms. Bailey: All right. Give me just a second to get organized, and then I’ll point you to your tabs to get out what you need. You might want to keep out your existing Commission District maps so you’ll have them to refer to, and those were under your Tab K, and also your existing Commission District Population Summary Report. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Colclough? Go ahead. 10 Mr. Colclough: Lynn, I was looking back to see what the criteria that we were supposed to be using to draw these maps, and I’m going from memory so correct me if I’m wrong. But wasn’t one of them that we would try if at all possible to keep the incumbents that are currently elected in an District separate from two incumbents in the same districts unless it was an at-large and a single member district? Am I wrong in that? Ms. Bailey: As I recall, that is correct, but I would defer that to Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Kuhlke: Sir, you are correct. But there was a clarification, I think, from Mr. Wall at the meeting that you were not able to make, that while that was a desire of the committee, that is not a legal requirement. Mr. Colclough: Okay. I wanted to make sure because -- now this may be different, but having served on the committee of the General Assembly that redistricted the State, Congressional and Senate both, that was a major criteria that we used, and we did not [inaudible] unless it was absolutely essential, and I think we should possibly consider that as one of the major criteria because the Courts will consider it. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay, Ms. Bailey. Which tab do we go on your plan? Ms. Bailey: Okay. I know all these plan names get confusing, and I’ve tried to name them in such a way to eliminate some of that. But the -- if you’ll recall last week, we went through this reapportionment office plan, and in our initial meeting one of the problems that was brought out with that plan -- now this was the plan that was drawn by the Legislative Reapportionment Office in Atlanta. One of the problems with that plan is they inadvertently drew Mr. Colclough out of his District. And so one of the first things we did after that initial meeting was to go in and make some changes, putting Mr. Colclough back into his District. Now in doing so, that one precinct is quite large and it affected about 4,000 people, so you can imagine taking 4,000 people out of one district had somewhat of a rippling effect around some of the other Districts surrounding it. But we made those changes and we went over those changes last week. After having gone over those changes, there were a few more suggestions made by the committee, which we have gone in and made. But I want y’all to keep in mind that this plan, while it seems to meet the criteria that this committee set forth, in that we tried to eliminate splitting neighborhoods, we’ve tried not to split precincts, we have kept all the incumbents in their districts, and the 11 deviation is within the proper range and those things, it’s not perfect, and it’s being put up here with the thought that this group can look at it and then continue to come back with suggested changes and recommendations to make it, to allow this group to come to a consensus. Now one of the things you’re going to notice when we start going through this plan is in making the changes requested last week, it brought the deviation in District 8 down to greater than 4%. Now I did not go in and make changes to correct that deviation because I didn’t want to be presumptuous enough to do that. But I would depend on y’all, if you’re not comfortable with that deviation to tell me where you want these changes made, and we can get those changes made, or if you want me to do it I’ll be glad to do it upon your direction. But what we’re going to see here are some revised, some changes from last week. There was a change that Mr. Bridges suggested that we put into place. There was a change that Mr. Beard suggested that was put into place, and there was a change that Mr. Jerry Brigham suggested that we put into place. And so we’ll go over those changes and we can look at the revised population figures and then we’ll just kind of open it for discussion and any questions. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Ms. Bailey: Okay, this plan you’re going to find under your Tab R. Tab R as in Richard. And it was in your supplement that you probably got yesterday or the day before. It was in that packet under your Tab R. Also in that packet, there should have been -- there should have been a Population Summary Report entitled Reapportionment Office Plan Revision 1. And that’s the summary report we’ll be working from. Ms. Speaker: Lynn? Ms. Bailey: Yes, ma’am? Ms. Speaker: I have a question. Did we ever determine what should take priority -- the total population or the voting age population? Ms. Bailey: Well, I’m not sure that we did. And again, I might defer to some of our General Assembly members to answer that question, but it is my understanding that there is nothing written that says that one takes precedence or carries more weight than the other. I think each carries weight in their own way. But Mr. Howard or Mr. Allen or Mr. DeLoach or 12 Sen. Cheek that have done this on the State level may could shed some more light on that. Mr. Kuhlke: Can any of y’all shed any light on that? Rep. Howard? Mr. Howard: As long as the deviation falls in place, that’s been our guiding force. Not to say which is [inaudible] deviation [inaudible] Mr. Speaker: The bottom line is there is no law which says that you have to consider the voting age population or general population. It’s just some years ago a rule of thumb was created by the Justice Department as a policy matter. They talked about the 65% rule and they were talking in terms of voting age population. But there is nothing that says that you can’t consider the general population. I think you do everything on a case-by-case basis, at least that’s what I do. I take a look at the voting trends in an area. I take a look at what has been shown in the past, the strong voting areas. You take a look at the neighborhoods. You take a look at a whole lot of factors. And then you take a look at a range of 60% to 65% in the voting age population. Again, it’s just a matter of personal preference. There is no legal standard which says that you’ve got to say 65%. Mr. Kuhlke: Senator? Mr. Cheek: I feel fine that the first thing that we’re going to be confronted with is one man, one vote, so that puts the general population. After you look at the general population, usually you’re going to find that is going to be about 3% to 4% on the voting population as to the percentage. That’s what we found. However, the Senate had one set of rules as to what requirements would be, the House had another set of rules. For example, the nd 22 Senatorial District now has approximately 50.9% and we consider that ndndrdnd to be a minority district. 22. Did I say 22 or 23? The 22, that’s what nd I’m speaking of. The 22. It has approximately 55%, 54% or 55% total population minority. This does not include Hispanics. Hispanics is not included. We’re talking about strictly black voters when we’re talking about the [inaudible] population. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Cheek: I’m doing the best I can. I said that the Senate and the House had different rules including when [inaudible] for the Congressional Senate [inaudible], as long as you have 50-plus. And [inaudible] 54% to 55% total black, disregarding Hispanic, that would be considered a minority 13 nd district. To show what I’m speaking, the 22 Senatorial District currently is less than 51% VAP, and 55% black total population. Now the House would not accept that, I’m sure. They did not. So there is not set criteria I think as far as law. [inaudible] must have [inaudible] is what the simple rule is we’re going to have to keep in mind is my opinion. I mean you can set your criteria but the one man, one vote is going to demand a total population. Mr. Kuhlke: Any other comments? Lynn, you want to go ahead and continue? Ms. Bailey: Yes, sir. Okay. Why don’t we start with the changes in District 1? The changes in District 1 are really not that extensive. The changes in District 1 include putting into District 1 Precinct 45. Precinct 45, which is the precinct that current votes at the Second Mt. Moriah Church. Another change made to District 1 was taken out. At the top of Precinct 56 on the northwest side there, that whole string of blocs right there, all those right there, that was taken out of the former district. It gets confusing but out of the revised Reapportionment Plan from last week. Those are the changes that I’m talking about now. So those few blocs removed from District 1 to District 3 and Precinct 45 was put into District 1. Now the effect those changes had on District 1 are reflected in your Population Summary Report. You can see on the report that’s entitled Reapportionment Office Test Plan Revision 1, and you have another Population Summary Report that is Reapportionment Office Test Plan. If you’ll look at those two reports, you can see that the deviation changed in District 1 from -.71% to +1.64%. The total black population changed from 63.65% to 65.39%. The total white population changed from 26.4% to 24.4%. The black voting age population changed from 58.24% to 60.13%. And the total white voting age population changed from 41.7% to 39.8%. And that’s the only change in District 1. Any questions about any of that? Now if you’ll recall, District 1 from the beginning was very low in population. They had a lot of ground to make up there because they were sitting at almost 16% minus deviation to start off with. And so we pulled a lot of that down below precinct, all that area right in there, we pulled into District 1 out of 2 and 5 to get those numbers up. So that is District 1. And in all of these Districts, again just to reiterate, all of the incumbents are in place in the Districts that they currently hold. And that does include Mr. Mays, who has recently had an address change. He’s fine. Includes Mr. Boyles, recently elected in District 7. And it includes both candidates in the runoff for Commission coming up next 14 week. They are both safely within their Districts. Okay, let’s move down and look at District 8. Mr. Speaker: Ms. Lynn, are we to assume that under this plan the Board of Education folks are still in place? Ms. Bailey: Yes, sir. In fact I’ll call your attention -- Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Ms. Bailey: I apologize. Yes. Yes. All the incumbents. Every incumbent, both School Board and Commission, everybody is in place. And it will help you to know that on this map the green dots, the dark green dots that you see up there, those are where the School Board incumbents currently live, and the red triangles that you see are where the Commission council members currently live. Mr. Speaker: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Bailey: Okay. All right. In District 8, a suggested change was -- right in that area where the pointer is, that’s Precinct 41, and that’s the voters that vote at the Southside Baptist Church out on Peach Orchard Road just north of Tobacco Road. And all we did in that area was to drop the line from where you see it at that top, which is Butler Creek. We dropped it straight down to Tobacco Road, and that was done in an effort to widen the bridge going up through that area so it didn’t look so odd. And see the problem we have right in that area is we have two Commissioners and two School Board members that live in pretty close proximity. You have Jeff Padgett down at the bottom there in 41, Barbara Padgett there in 51, Andy Cheek is there in 46, and Mr. Colclough is there in 20. So that is one of the biggest challenges, to get those four incumbents separated into their own District, but I think by widening that bridge a little bit will help that. So we did that and then we included that one little bloc right there. The squiggly lines that you see above that bloc, that’s Apple Valley Subdivision, and the dividing line actually goes down Marvin Griffin Road. I don’t think it affects any people at all, but it just looks better. Now by making those changes in District 8, prior to those changes District 8 had a deviation of +.89%, and it dropped to -4.28%. The effect on the population is that before the changes the black population percentage was at 25%, and it changed to 22.79%. The white population would have been 75%, changing to 77.2%. The black voting age population was at 23.74%, changing to 21.7%, with the 15 white voting age population previously at 76.3%, changing to 78.3%. And that’s all the changes in District 8. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir? Mr. Colclough: Ms. Bailey, could you take a look at 4? Since we had to draw me back in? Ms. Bailey: Sure. Mr. Colclough: Show me the boundary lines of 4. Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir. Mr. Speaker: Lynn, I’m noticing that in District 8, that’s the farthest deviation you have and it’s a [inaudible] deviation. I’d just like to say that we used the idea that when that is a growth area, that the maximum deviation was acceptable. So I think that would be acceptable in my opinion because that’s exactly what we did. If you can ascertain and prove that 8 is a growth area, then you can [inaudible] max on it, and that would give you the max. Ms. Bailey: We’ve had a request to take a look at District 4. District 4. Hold on just a minute. Mr. Bridges: I’ve got a question, Ms. Bailey. Ms. Bailey: Yes, sir? Mr. Bridges: When we do these maps, when does it take effect as far as what Commission District you represent on the maps? You said if it gets approved by the Legislature the first of the year, but -- Ms. Bailey: The way it will work with the Board of Education is that, and I believe this is right -- Pete, you correct me if I’m wrong. But I believe that the Board of Education members would continue to represent their constituents up through the end of 2002 under the Districts as they exist right now. They will run [inaudible] the new Districts in 2003 when they are 16 sworn into their new seats. They will begin to represent their new Districts at that time. Mr. Bridges: Will that work the same way as the Commission? Ms. Bailey: I would assume it would, but it’s a little bit different this year with the Commission, because the Commission won’t run from their new lines until 2003, which means that you would continue to represent under the old Districts until the end of 2003, and I frankly don’t know if that would -- because you’ve got such a long period of time between the time you run for office. Mr. Bridges: The reason I’m asking that -- Ms. Bailey: But in terms of the areas that they actually would represent, the constituents that would be theirs, at what point would they begin representing their new constituents? Mr. Kuhlke: Write that down, Lynn. Mr. Bridges: Yes, I’d like -- the reason I’m asking that, Lynn and Jim, is because the Bill is drawn up such that if a Commissioner serves two four-years terms back-to-back, he can’t run. Now that doesn’t apply to -- the Legislature drew in that way -- it doesn’t apply to the Legislature and it doesn’t apply to the School Board. That strictly applies to the Commission. In two years I won’t be able to run again for any Commission seat. I’m just wondering if it even makes a difference if say Andy and I were in the same District with this redrawing. You know, if we’re going to continue to represent our Commission District as it is, it wouldn’t make any difference. Mr. Kuhlke: That’s a good point, Mr. Bridges. I think probably we’re going to have to write it down and see if we can get an answer to that. Mr. Bridges: You and I are lame ducks, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Kuhlke: Well, we’re in charge. We can do what we want to do. Ms. Bailey: Actually we made no -- going back to District 4 there were no changes made between our meeting last week and this week in District 4, but to point out there were a few changes made in District 4 originally by the Reapportionment Office. Now one of the biggest changes are that Precinct 2, which is the American Legion Post voters, was drawn 17 into District 6. And Precinct 33, which is the Meadowbrook voters, was drawn into District 5. Mr. Colclough: What’s that little sliver on the other side of there? Right there. Ms. Bailey: Right there? That is the top portion of the Morgan Road voting precinct. That area was taken out of the former District 4 also. Mr. Colclough: Go up. Up to your left. Come on back over to 4. Right in there. Ms. Bailey: You want to know what area that is? Mr. Colclough: Yes. You just passed over it. Ms. Bailey: I’ll have to lay the streets down. Mr. Colclough: You’ve got it. Right there. Ms. Bailey: It’s Fort Gordon over to the left. Mr. Colclough: Come back to your right. I can’t see the numbers over there. Right in there. Ms. Bailey: Right in there? Mr. Colclough: Yes. Back up to your left. Right there. Ms. Bailey: Right there? That’s on the edge of Fort Gordon. That’s Deans Bridge Road right there. So all of that is Fort Gordon over there. Mr. Colclough: Fort Gordon. Ms. Bailey: And on other side, that looks like -- is that Butler Manor Subdivision over there? Mr. Colclough: Yes. Ms. Bailey: Yes. So that area was taken out of 4 and put into 5. Now going -- the areas that went into District 4, the Jamestown precinct, the big Jamestown precinct, came out of 6 and went into 4. I think that those are the major changes. 18 Mr. Colclough: That little area up there that I put a lot of work into, which is Barton Village. Is that still there? Ms. Bailey: That was actually drawn -- no, that was drawn into another District. Barton was drawn into another District. It was drawn into 5. Mr. Colclough: I did a lot of work out there. I am still doing a lot of work out there and I’d like to keep that area. Mr. Kuhlke: Anything else in your District? You got that down, Jim? Richard, we’re walking on a waterbed. Mr. Colclough: That’s okay. I can swim. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Ms. Bailey: I have one more change I’d like to point out in District 7 that was made, if I may. We had a suggestion at the last meeting that the precinct boundary line on the top end of 57A be dropped down to Bobby Jones to allow for some growth in District 7. I think that was the reasoning behind it. So we made that change. The effect that that change had is that District 7 went from a -.95% deviation to a +2% deviation, with the black population going from 20.4% to 20.53%, the white population going from 79.6% to 79.4%, the black voting age population going from 18.69% to 18.82%, and the white voting age population going from 81.3% to 81.2%. And those are the changes in District 7. Now other than that, I made no changes to that map. If this is the map that the group wants to work from, I want there to be a good understanding that the changes that I make, I’m taking the position that I’m making them only on y’all’s request. I’m not going in there and thinking, oh, well, this would be better if it were done this way or this would be better if it were done another way. I’m depending on the committee to tell me what direction y’all want me to go into. If you want me to be in that role, I will be in that role but I would assume that those are decisions that y’all would like to make, and so with that said I notice that the deviation in District 7 went from slightly minus to slightly over. One thing to consider is I don’t know how much growth is available in District 7, but you might want to look at the deviation in District 7. But those are decisions for this group. 19 Ms. Speaker: I have a question, please. Before we go into that, Lynn, could you review District 6, because the changes made, taking that area from District 8, changes District 6? Ms. Bailey: Yes. Ms. Speaker: Could you just go over those population changes? Ms. Bailey: Yes. Okay we talked a minute ago about the changes that we made dropping the boundary line in District 8 from the creek down th to Tobacco Road, and we talked about how that affected the 8 District. But thth now let’s talk about how moving those from the 8 into the 6 District thth affected the 6 District. The 6 District went from a deviation of -2.78% to a deviation of +2.4%, with the black voting age population changing from 43.47% to 44.66%, and the white population changing from 56.5% to 55.4%. The black voting age population in District 6 changed form 38.6% -- excuse me, 38.86% to 40.07%, and the white voting age population changed from 61.1% to about 60%. Ms. Speaker: Thank you. Ms. Bailey: So that was the affect there. There would be also similar small changes in District 3, where we made the change to District 7, dropping that line down to Bobby Jones, small changes. Fairly insignificant, but small changes there on District 3 that you might want to look at as well. Ms. Speaker: Lynn, can you tell me where -- what neighborhood the Tobacco Road that you’ve added in right there? Ms. Bailey: The area that’s been added to District 6? Ms. Speaker: Yes. What is that? [inaudible] Ms. Bailey: I do. Right up to the north of the former precinct line, the precinct line is Butler Creek. The old precinct line is Butler Creek. Just to the north of that is Phinizy Road. That’s Phinizy Road there. So that area to the south of the creek, I believe, is Butler Manor Trailer Park, maybe or Butler Creek Trailer Park. Mr. Speaker: Chateaus. Ms. Bailey: Chateaus. Chateaus at Butler Manor. Yes. 20 Ms. Speaker: That’s what I thought. Mr. Kuhlke: Has anybody got any further questions in regards to the map? If not, Lynn, why don’t we do this? Why don’t we take the map, the whole map, and put it up on the screen, and maybe revisit the criteria and see how the map relates to the criteria that we developed initially and see if anyone has got any comments on those. What tab is that? Ms. Bailey: Your criteria is under Tab D. Mr. Kuhlke: Explain your map. Ms. Bailey: Okay. Going down the criteria, one of the top criteria for this group was to establish mirroring lines, and this map does that. It includes the School Board and the Commission, placing all the current incumbents and current elected officials within their proper Districts, no opposing incumbents in that. Another criteria is contiguity and compactness. There is it. That gives you a pretty good of how the Districts are shaped and what they look like. They are certainly contiguous. Each District is touching another part of the District. Compact is a determination that this group would have to make, but that’s what we have there. We were asked to avoid splitting precincts and municipalities. Note that municipalities of Hephzibah and Blythe are not split. There were, I think, eight split precincts on this plan, none of which are horrible. Some of them follow, in fact, splits that are going to be caused by House, Senate or Congressional lines anyway. Preserving communities of interest. That again I think is a determination for this committee, whether y’all feel that this plan does that or not. Protecting incumbents we talked about. Minimizing voter confusion and maximizing convenience. I think that we achieved both of those goals with this plan. We’ve minimized moving voters to the extent that we could, knowing that people are going to be affected. Deviation in size of the districts. They each fall within +5%. Less [inaudible] less recognizable geographic boundaries. It does. And keeping neighborhoods intact if possible. I think all those things were considered. But knowing that, this plan was based to the extent possible on the existing lines, so a lot of the communities or neighborhoods that were already split remain to be split or remain split. They were not necessarily put back together. Perhaps some were, but for the most part, those situations remained the same. I don’t recall any instances with the exception of one where a neighborhood was split, and that one -- the one that comes to mind right off is in Precinct 29, which votes at the Lumpkin Road Baptist Church. 21 We took the district line down Ruby Drive, I think, which kind of cuts that precinct in half in there. Ruby Drive is a pretty big road. It’s not like cutting up through Montclair or something and splitting up a neighborhood like that. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Does anybody see any conflict with the map in the criteria that we developed? I do. Compactness and communities of interest are two things that I have a problem with. I think District 1 is too spread out. I think District 8 is pretty long. It almost blocks off half of the county from the rest of the half. Communities of interest, looking at District 1, the length of that District and the same way with District 8. I don’t see it. But those are my concerns. Anybody else got any concerns? Everybody happy with it? Want to adopt the map? Mr. Bridges: I’ve got one thing I’d like to see, Lynn. I noticed on the Reapportionment for the Revision Plan One, District 6 and District 8 -- I’m calculating the District 6, which has been traditionally a white District, is 50% white based on the black population of 44.6% here. District 8 is 75% white. That’s the Plan One Revision. Is there a way we can make those, between those two districts, without affecting any other District, say 62% or 65% white for both those districts? Is that something you could look at? And you might even be able to incorporate that with the changes Mr. Colclough wanted as far as Barton Chapel. I don’t know. But I’m wondering if without affecting the others if you could make that more equal. I know the Justice Department goes or protect the minority districts, and I think that’s been done here, but I’d like those traditional white districts more equal as well. And I understand Mr. Kuhlke’s comments on District 8, too, but I don’t, Bill, I don’t think that it violates preserving communities of interest there. That district there is probably pretty much the most sparsely population area of the county. The people in that area there traditionally -- there are some established neighborhoods in which homes are right next to each other, but that pretty well encompasses all the areas where people have one acre or five acre plots and have a home on them. So I don’t think that that violates that in this case. Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Lynn. What’s the population of Fort 3 and Fort 4? I don’t believe there is any population there. Ms. Bailey: The two Fort Gordon precincts? 22 Mr. Speaker: Yes. District 8. Fort 3 and Fort 4. I think your population is at [inaudible] and [inaudible]. Ms. Bailey: Fort Gordon 3 actually has a total population of 4,285 people. Fort Gordon 2 and 4 have a population of 1 and 3 people respectively. And Fort Gordon 1 has a population of 3,465. Mr. Speaker: So Fort Gordon 1 and Fort Gordon 3 is where the population is? Ms. Bailey: 1 and 3, yes, sir. Mr. Speaker: All right. I’ve represented that area, part or all of it, for 30 years. The most votes I ever received was one time I got 8, and the rest of the time, I got less than 2. Ms. Bailey: They don’t vote. Mr. Speaker: So we don’t have to worry about votes in that area. Ms. Bailey: Well, not only do they not vote, they don’t register. Mr. Speaker: That’s what I was trying to point out. I got the highest th number of votes ever case from the 4 and that was 8, and the total votes case was 9. Ms. Bailey: We typically in the Fort Gordon area have registered voters ranging from 100 to 250. Something like that. Even though the census would show that there are 9,000-10,000 people out there. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Any other comments regarding the map? Mr. Wall, you and Mr. Fletcher, I’m wondering at this point -- Lynn’s got a few things that she’s going to need to work on and get some information on. As we continue on with this thing, we are doing this without any legal representation from a professional standpoint as far as redistricting. Does the committee feel like at this point we ought to direct the two attorneys maybe to get somewhat involved and take a look at what we have done up to this point and see if we are following the rules and regulations? At some point we’re going to need to do that, and I don’t know whether we can go to the State and get them to take a look at this or whether we just involve an expert in this. 23 Mr. Wall: I think we can [inaudible] get it done by the Attorney General’s office [inaudible], between that and Ms. Beazley’s office, you have got three experienced people who have dealt with it [inaudible]. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. If there are no objections, I’d like to direct the two attorneys to -- and whichever one wants to get in touch with them, but to go ahead and let’s take, Lynn, what we have up to this point and maybe try to get a review of this and be able to report back to us at our next meeting. Any objections to that? If not, if you’d do that. Ms. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, does that mean -- does that include the changes, I mean the questions that we just brought up within the past few minutes? Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah. I think Lynn was asked in District 4 to make a change. Ms. Bailey: I was. And I can tell you that by moving that Barton Chapel precinct out of District 5 and putting it back in District 4, it’s going to have a tremendous impact on the entire plan. So we may see it in attempting to do that, it will have a significant impact. So if you’re going to make that change, you might want to wait. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. If you do that and if you look at the changes that Mr. Bridges is talking about in 6 and 9, do you think you have the flexibility in those other two districts to work it out? Ms. Bailey: Between 6 and 8? Mr. Kuhlke: Uh-huh [yes]. Ms. Bailey: Possibly. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Well, maybe then what we need to do is hold off and see what impact that change has on us, but I do think we’re getting to a point that we need to get some legal opinions on this. Ms. Bailey: And just for clarification, the problem that we’re going to have in that District 4 is because Districts 1, 2 and 5 were so under populated when the census came out, and they’re all so close together, that the people had to come from somewhere to go into those districts. Those districts start from the east and come down through the inner city, going on 24 out towards the Fort Gordon area. Some of the areas were corrected. For instance in District 1 they took some areas out of 2 and 5 and moved those into District 1. Well, in doing that, it made 2 and 5 even less populated, so we had bring up some areas from the south, up into those districts, and that’s how those areas got shifted in the first place. I’m not saying that it is impossible to do. We can look at it. And in fact, I would invite Mr. Colclough to come down and sit with us while we do it. Mr. Colclough: I’ll be more than happy to do that. Ms. Bailey: Good. I would like for you to. Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] Mr. Kuhlke: We didn’t draw you out. We drew you back in. Ms. Bailey: We did. That was inadvertent by the Reapportionment Office. They just made a mistake. Nothing intentional. Mr. Kuhlke: Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mays: I yield to Ben. Mr. Kuhlke: Ben? Mr. Allen: Yeah. Ms. Bailey and I have an appointment for next week with -- I had talked to her about doing a couple of things with the map, so we’re going to be -- I assume by the comments that you are making that you’re not saying that we don’t have the -- we will not have the opportunity to present a map that maybe one of us will come up with at our next meeting? Mr. Kuhlke: I asked you to do that last time. Mr. Allen: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that we have tentatively set some time aside for the early part of next week to sit down and do some things. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Okay. Mr. Hatney: And looking at all these possibilities we are talking about, would it be also wise to see where the plan we’re looking at measures 25 up to the Legislative plan? Cause ultimately and eventually, they’re going to make the decision anyway; isn’t that true? Ms. Bailey: I’m not sure that there is a Legislative plan, at least that our General Assembly Delegation has come up with at this point. Mr. Hatney: They have not done one? Ms. Bailey: Maybe they have. I don’t know. Mr. Hatney: I’m basically asking the question. Okay. They have not. Okay. Mr. Kuhlke: Rev. Hatney, I think the idea of putting this group together, which includes the Delegation, is that if we can come up with a plan that everyone can agree on, then the Delegation that is represented here can carry it back and the full Delegation will agree on it. It’s going to save them some time when they go to Atlanta. Mr. Hatney: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke: So that’s the purpose of us getting together. Mr. Hatney: Okay. I just asked the question. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mays: I was just going to follow up on that [inaudible]. They’re at the table now and ultimately [inaudible] drawing. [inaudible] approve it under their right to do. I think that’s the reason why we begin wanting them at the table, from the standpoint of what you’re saying. You know, we can get together, the two groups, but if they going to do the voting in January, it’s better to have them at the table now, kind of like in a marriage, because even though they’re not legally bound, but I think in the spirit of an open meeting, they have representatives who are here, and that gets us to a point that if something is wrong with it, this would be the time and the process to do it, prior to them getting to Atlanta so that while we go through the fine tuning before we get there with the legal representatives on the State side, we kind of know where we are. And the only thing I would say is that I guess we’re still in a mode of more of a test map per se of trying to get to a final project the State then -- I guess maybe on our next meeting on whatever date you set on that, Mr. Chairman, would it maybe not be good if 26 we went -- if we skipped a week [inaudible] next month, but I know we [inaudible] National League of Cities. And if you’re allowing some time for whether it’s Ms. Bailey in terms of fine tuning it or getting with the State, those folks, whatever little tweaks that get back in, would we be able to accomplish that much by getting right back again the next week and then maybe having to come back again, or skip and maybe getting a lot out of the way in the interim or different Commissioners who wanted to get here and see what stage that test map was going so that we could get back maybe in two weeks instead of a map? I’ll be at either one of them but I just was throwing that out to a point would we be able to accomplish that much in the next five to six days, or with some of us leaving to a point -- just putting that out there for discussion. Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] won’t be here. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]. Mr. Kuhlke: My idea, based on what Rep. Allen said -- did you say you’re going next week, Ben, to Atlanta? Mr. Allen: Well, I was going to be getting with Ms. Bailey here in Augusta. She and I are going to spend some time. I assume y’all are authorized some overtime cause my time is better after five o’clock. Mr. Kuhlke: If the Delegation can appropriate some money, we’ll be all right. Mr. Allen: But yeah, I do need some time to do it, but if it’s the will of this committee that we meet next week, I’ll have something on the table next week. I don’t have any problem. It’s just that I come down here at five o’clock and I’ll stay till 12, one o’clock. It doesn’t matter to me. Ms. Bailey: You will? Mr. Allen: Yeah. It doesn’t matter to me. You set a date and I’m ready. Ms. Bailey: I’ll show you where the computer is. Okay? Mr. Kuhlke: What is two weeks from today? Ms. Bailey: And just to remind the group, my office is available anytime to anybody that wants to come in and have a one-on-one meeting. 27 We basically have the same capabilities here that they have in the Reapportionment Office in terms of shifting voters around and moving them. Now as I said from the beginning, though, I don’t profess to be an expert on redistricting. Y’all can tell me what you would like to do, and I will try my best to do that. If anybody wanted to get with the Reapportionment Office, I certainly would not be offended by that. It would be fine. And any work that’s done in Atlanta can be sent electronically down here to Augusta and we can dump it into our system and pop it right up there on the screen for you to see. So either way is perfectly fine. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Senator? Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, I concur that the two attorneys ought to take a very serious look, and also that they, someone -- you or someone that’s in charge of the committee, especially Lynn being involved, Lynn Bailey -- Don and certainly Linda give any information on the points of law. Both of them are very, very capable. Linda knows them by memory, and Don has been through the Courts long enough now he’s got a degree in it. So I think if we’d like this map. Secondly, I can’t speak for the Delegation, but I believe I would not be biased if I said anything that the School Board and the County Commission create, I don’t think the Delegation would give you much trouble. You know, we look to see, at least I do, and Ben sort of concurred a minute ago that if y’all can agree on something, I don’t think we would want to stand in your way. So if y’all can come up with a plan that y’all like, I think the Delegation is going to pretty well go along with you. I can’t see George, Henry or my saying something that you think we would disagree with anything that the School Board and the County Commission come up with a plan they can agree on, do you think the Delegation would have any objections? I just don’t see how we could. Mr. Speaker: I don’t think so. Mr. Speaker: So I throw it back on your laps. If the attorneys can meet with them and see that we’re meeting the criteria that the Court is going to require, and then if y’all are happy, I think we are going to be very content. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Speaker: Now let me say this while I’m talking. Two weeks from now I cannot be at a meeting. I notice that one week from now we 28 have the DOT meeting at 8, last till about 9:30, then I have a Chamber -- in the conference room -- meeting at 10 a.m. I am sure most of y’all are going to be there, or some of you. So next week, which would be Wednesday the th 28, if you make it in the afternoon -- but I can’t make the morning meeting. th I will be in Atlanta on a Rail Study Committee on the 5, not that I have to th be here, but I just wanted you to know I can’t attend on the 5 at all. I’ll be thth gone the 4 and the 5. Mr. Kuhlke: When’s the Board of Education meeting? Ms. Speaker: We will leave Wednesday -- Mr. Speaker: For Atlanta. Ms. Speaker: For Atlanta for a School Board conference. th Mr. Kuhlke: That’s the 28? Mr. Speaker: Yes. th Mr. Beard: And then next, the League of Cities is on the 5 of December, around that time. Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Let’s do this. Let’s go ahead and set our next meeting for December 12. And Pete, you’re going to be gone when? The thth 10 and the 11? thth Mr. Fletcher: 10 and 11. th Mr. Kuhlke: How about looking back -- how about the 4, which is a Tuesday? Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] th Mr. Beard: Couldn’t we meet the 12? th Mr. Kuhlke: Let’s do this. Let’s go ahead and set it for the 12. At 8:15. Now in the meantime, what I’m going to do as far as the Commission is I’m going to have a meeting with the four Commissioners so that we can talk. I’d like to ask Mr. Colclough, and I’d like Mr. Bridges, to get together with Lynn as quickly as you can as far as the changes that you were working 29 on. Then once you make those changes, Lynn, and if things work out, if you can work them out, then the information, the map, the population summaries and the back-up material needs to be gotten to Pete and Jim, whichever one is going to take the lead. And I’d like to ask the attorneys before our next meeting to talk with the State to see what feedback they got based on the criteria, the way we’ve got the lines, the deviations and so forth, and maybe get an answer to the question that Ulmer asked about when do people start representing the new lines. And other questions that we’ve got. I would like to encourage the School Board committee, for them to get together, and my thought is I think maybe in your own environment you might come up with some ideas that you may not come up with in a meeting like this. But we need for you to bring some suggestions back if you have any. Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir? Mr. Mays: Does the board have a date that they’re specifically meeting with the [inaudible]? Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] th Mr. Mays: Ours is the 10. With all due respect, I think you’re right, I agree with the Senator here that they will do what we ask, but I think maybe at least [inaudible] -- I think you’ve got part of the Delegation that’s been coming at one time or another, mostly all of them with the exception of maybe one or two -- it would just be most helpful to a point that even though [inaudible], but I always believe a little bit better in terms of where a person votes [inaudible]. Now what I think in terms of [inaudible], the reason I asked when the Board was going to meet with the Delegation, if y’all already met that’s a moot point. But I think maybe at least in our meeting th on the 10 in terms of the spirit [inaudible], unless there is some disagreement, and I’m still hoping that if there is, that that gets out of the way before it gets [inaudible], and I’m trying to be real statesman-like, respectful when I say this. But I have known us to talk about things prior to th them going to Atlanta, and I see my Board of Education colleague in the 9 District that we share, and he knows exactly where I’m coming from. We want to make sure that at least these two local bodies agree, then that’s what we’re going to basically give them, or if there is some problem, we either work that out in December. We don’t need to get back to an email in January to a point that something needs to be changed. Because you all have 30 that power up there to still deal with it, at least you have it over one of these local bodies. And I’m just saying that while I think that all that is good, we just need to [inaudible] that and have some commitment prior to y’all leaving. And while I respect the virtues of that gentleman- and lady-like camaraderie, but I just think if you say that and deal with it in some public setting, then that [inaudible] ought to go. Now if it’s something of a technical difficult and you get there and something legally can’t be done, then we need to know that. But I think we on the road, Mr. Chairman, to getting that done before we leave. I just don’t want to see us with us agreeing on something now and having [inaudible] meetings and then all of a sudden [inaudible], and I’m just saying that not of any distrust, but I’m just saying that from historical patterns to a point that [inaudible] in gist, and in theory, and in reality, and we get something else. I just wanted to put that, Mr. Chairman, for the record. And I respect everybody here. But y’all know that can get out of the box sometime. That’s why I wanted y’all here as a part of what we do. Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you. Okay. We’ll set our meeting for December 12. 8:15. Lena, if you can handle that for us. Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, is 8:15 - 8:15 all over Augusta? Mr. Kuhlke: It is except over there where Willie Mays lives. He’s on a different time zone. Any other information? Ms. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Will we be getting these changes that we talked about -- will we be getting them? And in what time frame? Mr. Kuhlke: Lynn? Ms. Bailey: Just as soon they’re made. I’ll get them out to you, with the School Board -- I’ll get Ms. Lovell at the School Board office to courier them to you, and the Commissioners, I will get them out to you in some way, and with the Legislative Delegation, we’ve worked that out, too. Mr. Kuhlke: You think it will be next week? Ms. Bailey: I will try my best. In fact, what I would like to do is the requested changes by Mr. Bridges and Mr. Colclough, if we can go ahead and take care of those as soon as possible, because all the other changes are going to hinge upon those, too. 31 Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Richard, can you and Ulmer get with Lynn the first part of next week? Mr. Colclough: Sure can. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. So hopefully we’ll get it next week. Ms. Speaker: I was just thinking that would be good to have before we meet with our individual committee board. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Anything else? Ms. Bailey: And just what we’ll do when we make those changes, we have all the other plans that we talked about before any revisions were made. You know, everything is saved under a different name. And so the good thing is even after changes are made, we can revert back to another plan if that’s what you want to do. We can be pretty flexible with it. But yeah, I’ll try to get that out to you. Mr. Kuhlke: If there is nothing else, we stand adjourned. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission 32