Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-2001 Meeting I REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE Meeting December 12, 2001 The Redistricting Committee met on December 12, 2001. Present from the Augusta Richmond County Commission were Bill KuWke, Tommy Boyles, Ulmer Bridges, Willie Mays, Marion Williams, and Richard Colclough. Present from the Richmond County Board of Education were J. R. Hatney, Barbara Padgett, Helen Minchew, and Y.N. Myers, Jr. Present from the Legislative Delegation were Henry Howard, George DeLoach, Benjamin Allen, and Don Cheeks. Also present was David Barbee from the Richmond County Republican Party. I Also present were Jim Wall, Commission Attorney; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Pete Fletcher, School Board Attorney; and Lynn Bailey. Call Meeting to Order Mr. Kuhlke: Call the meeting to order. I would like to say before we get started if you don't mind [inaudible]. If you would [inaudible]. Okay, Ms. Bailey, I'm going to turn it over to you. Ms. Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. The first item on the agenda is for the committee to receive the report from attorneys. If you'll recall at the last meeting, the attorneys were asked to look at the Revision 2 plan, to run it by the Legislative Reapportionment office to make sure that it met not only the criteria that this committee had set, but other legal issues as well, so with that I will turn it over to Mr. Fletcher, who will begin the attorneys' report. Mr. Cheeks: Mr. Chairman? I Mr. KuWke: Yes, sir? Mr. Cheeks: Before we get too far in any plan, I'd like to move that the plan that's got Cheeks on it be withdrawn because I think we ought to look at one plan, and since Lynn and the attorneys and all have a plan that 1 they've already worked on, I would not like the confusion, so at this time I would move that we withdraw my plan because I didn't intend for it to be I submitted as long as we had a working plan on the table, and we do. So I ask that we disregard my plan at this time. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Any discussion? If not, all in favor please indicate by raising your hand. Anybody opposed? Unanimous. Report from Attornev Mr. Fletcher: Thank you. Members of the committee, at the last meeting y' all made some suggested changes to the map we were working from, which really came from the Reapportionment Office. And we made those changes -- Mr. Speaker: Speak a little louder, sir, we can't hear you. Mr. Fletcher: Okay. Following the last meeting, we -- Lynn's office made several changes that y'all had suggested and after those changes had been made she and Jim Wall and I went to Atlanta and met with the Reapportionment office to examine that plan. We asked the questions that y' all had from the standpoint of our criteria, and from what the Justice Department would review when they saw the plans. The advice we got from the Reapportionment office that we need the one man/one vote in all of our districts, and that the deviations we had were very tight, which means that we are well within acceptable limits. Looking at it from the standpoint of Section V of the Voting Act, we do not appear to have any retrogression, and therefore would meet that standard. Reapportionment discussed Section II with us and what they looked at this is whether or not under Section II we could create more minority districts. But given the percentage of our population in Richmond County 50/50 with the districts being divided as they are, they felt comfortable that we would meet those requirements also. The next thing that we discussed, in particular with District 6, which is one we discussed a good bit the other day, is that the population of District 6 has changed 13 points over the years toward minorities, so it's a transition period. And their advice to us was to make sure that it would remain an influence district so whoever was elected, the other constituents would have a voice or influence with that representative. So in summary, it was their feeling, although nobody can be certain what the Justice Department would. do, is that the plan y'all are working from, even though it can be fme tuned and changed more, they felt would meet the requirements upon submittal to 2 I I I the Justice Department. They then went into some detail with us as to criteria we should include when Jim and I made these submittals, and they suggested while we would be making the submittals separately, we make them simultaneously and work together, and Jim and I agreed we would pursue that route once y' all give us some direction. Mr. Kuhlke: [inaudible] you had a question concerning [inaudible]. Mr. Bridges: Who are you actually representing? And I think Jim's -- maybe he's got the answer as well. I wasn't sure if, you know, if my district changes, if I'd be representing the one I was elected by or the [inaudible]. That was my question. Mr. Fletcher: I think it's going to be up to us to provide into legislation how we will make that transition. Typically what's done is you provide that if there is a vacancy in your district that you now represent, before you are up for election, that the new election would be held from the new district and you would continue to represent your district now. Mr. Bridges: As is presently drawn? I Mr. Fletcher: Yes, yes. Until your next election, yes. Mr. Bridges: You're really representing the people that elected you to that office. Mr. Fletcher: And it's a transition period. I mean so it would take an election, or maybe two elections on the two-year spreads we have to transition, unless there is a vacancy by death or resignation. Mr. Kuhlke: Any questions of Pete or Jim? If no, we will move ahead. Avprove Minutes from 11/21/01 Meeting Mr. Kuhlke: You've received the minutes of our last meeting. I would [inaudible]. I Mr. Speaker: So moved. Mr. Bridges: Second. 3 Mr. Kuhlke: Motion and a second. I would [inaudible]. [inaudible] Pete Fletcher at our last meeting. All in favor of the minutes, please indicate I by aye. Anybody opposed? None heard. Review of Reapportionment - Cheeks Plan (Withdrawn earlier in meeting) Review of Revisions to Reapportionment Test Plan Revision 1 Ms. Bailey: What I thought we would do this morning is as you'll recall from the last meeting, there were a couple of suggested changes to be made to Revision 1. Those changes have been, and so in the new packet of information you received, you received a plan, Population Summary Report in Individual Districts entitled Revision 2. While we're waiting on the computer to come up, I will review the changes. One of the changes was that we were going to try to put the Barton Chapel Road precinct back into District 4. Another change regarded population shifts between District 6 and District 8. And we were able to address both of those issues. Now understanding that in moving that Barton Chapel Road precinct, it did cause a few other areas to be moved as well. So all of the changes that you're I going to see today affect Districts 4 and 5 and Districts 6 and 8. And it looks like we're in business, so give us one minute. It might be helpful if while we're waiting you go ahead and look under your Section F and you have the Population Summary Report for Revision 1 and Revision 2. It may be helpful for you to have those handy to refer to. While we're fiddling around with that, I will also refer you to -- you have a color map, one under your Tab R that refers to Revision 1. Also, under your Tab U is Revision 2. If you could go ahead and get those county color maps out, we may can just look at those and I can show you the changes on there, and I apologize for the wait here. Mr. Speaker: Under R? Ms. Bailey: Yes, one was under -- Revision 1 is under R, and Revision 2 is under U. Okay. All right. Up in the -- I'll draw your attention now to the screen. It looks like we're up and running here. The area where the pointer is on the map, that's the Barton Chapel Road precinct that we moved from District 5 and put into District 6. Now in making those changes, again there were other changes that were made as well. F or I instance, moving over to Precinct 2, which is the precinct that votes at the 4 I American Legion Post on Richmond Hill Road. That precinct was taken out of District 6 and put into District 5, as part of those changes. Also, moving south down the map, get to the Jamestown precinct, which is Precinct 22B. You'll see that a portion of that precinct was moved from District 4 to District 8. And again, that's the Jamestown precinct. Mr. Bridges: Lynn? Ms. Bailey: Yes, sir? I Mr. Bridges: Does that include Ulm Road and that area there? Ms. Bailey: Well, let's see. We would have to blow it up. Mr. Bridges: I believe it does. Ms. Bailey: It looks like the Plantation Acres Mobile Home Park is right there. Mr. Bridges: Yeah, yeah, okay. Ms. Bailey: There's Ulm Road right there. Mr. Bridges: I know where you're at. Yeah. Ms. Bailey: All right. So that's the portion of the Jamestown precinct that was moved over from 4 into 8. Ms. Minchew: Excuse me, Lynn. Ms. Bailey: Yes? Ms. Minchew: I have a question, too. Precinct 22 -- is Sand Ridge and Pinnacle Place -- where are they now? They're probably -- . Ms. Bailey: They are -- Sand Ridge has been split traditionally between Districts 4 and 8. Let's see. Those areas and Pinnacle Place -- are those areas on the south side of Tobacco Road? I Ms. Minchew: No, no. They're on the northwest right below Tobacco Road. Right south of Tobacco Road. Ms. Bailey: Perhaps where that 55A number is? 5 Ms. Minchew: No, no. Going towards Fort Gordon. Right in that I area. Ms. Bailey: Okay, let us blow that up and take a look at it. Ms. Minchew: Pinnacle Place is right down Tobacco Road from Fairington. Ms. Bailey: All right, here's Pinnacle Pines Place, right there at the bottom of your screen. That area would go into District 4. Ms. Minchew: District 4. Ms. Bailey: In fact, that entire Precinct 22B before any changes were made resided entirely in District 6. Ms. Minchew: That's right. Ms. Bailey: Originally it was put -- and then when we made the changes it was into District 4. Ms. Bailey: And now what you have is part of it in 4 and part in 8. Ms. Minchew: So Sand Ridge would be in 8? It's more to the west. I Ms. Minchew: District 4. Ms. Bailey: Do you know a street name in Sand Ridge? Ms. Minchew: Not right offhand. Ms. Bailey: Does anybody know a street name out there? In Sand Ridge? Mr. Speaker: Crest Drive. Crest Way. Ms. Bailey: Okay. Ms. Minchew: Must be a little further north. Ms. Bailey: All right. So there's Pepperdine, Creek View. So that area is in District 4. And I see Ridge Run, Fairington, so it looks like all of that area would be in District 4 in this plan. I 6 I Ms. Minchew: Okay. Ms. Bailey: Any more questions about that particular area before we move on? Okay, moving then east -- okay, changed in this latest revision, we took the area of McDade Farm Road, which is -- this area here, this is McDade Farm Road running right here. That area was moved from District 8 into District 6. Also moved from District 8 to District 6 is this area right along in here, which is just to the north of -- is that Spirit Creek? Butler Creek? I Mr. Speaker: That's Spirit Creek. Ms. Bailey: Okay, Spirit Creek. And this is, just for your information, this is -- is this Old Waynesboro Road here? Let me think a minute. That too far over? See what else is changed there. That is basically it. We changed this area, this area here and here, moved from District 8 into District 6. And so what you had as a result of moving that precinct, that Barton Chapel Road Precinct, everything kind of shifted around in a circle, right on up to accommodate those population shifts. And that's it. Those are the changes. Now you should look at your Population Summary Reports there and compare the two to see how the changes in population and percentages were affected by the changes that were made, and again you'll see that Districts l, 2, 3 and 7 were unchanged from the Revision 1 Plan that we were looking at, with Districts 4 and 5 -- with the changes, District 4 went from 71.32% black population to 75.39% black population. District 5 went form 71.5% black population, and again this is just black population, not voting age population, to 69.71 % total black population. District 6 went from 44.66% black population to right at 40%, and District 8 went from 22.79% total black population to 25.69% total black population. Also, just for your information, we revised our reports to also reflect the non-black population and voting age population which would include everything that's not black, including Asians, Hispanics and every category of voters, and we put those columns on the newest report, just for your information. So there are a couple of added columns on the latest report showing those numbers as well. Discussion I Mr. Kuhlke: Any comments? 7 Ms. Bailey: Now of course you also have the individual District maps I if you want to refresh your memory on some of the details from the other districts. I will say that I've gone back and double-checked to make sure that all the current incumbents, as well as the two newly-elected representatives on the Augusta Commission, are within their Districts, and yes, they are. So all of that still holds true with these revisions. Mr. Kuhlke: Lynn, could you maybe go back to our criteria and [inaudible] revisions [inaudible]. I think we need to go down the list of our criteria and explain how these relate to the criteria we adopted. Ms. Bailey: Yes, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: [inaudible]. Ms. Bailey: Your criteria is under your Tab D. Mr. Kuhlke: D? Ms. Bailey: D. As in Daniel. Okay. Moving down the list of criteria, the first criteria I have on the list is that the lines, the School Board and Commission District lines would mirror each other. And they in fact do I mirror each other. The next criteria is that the districts be contiguous. They are contiguous. Every part of a district is touch another part of that same district. And that the districts be compact. We tried as much as possible to keep the districts compact and neat, limiting in eliminating fingers and odd shapes to the extent that it was possible, so I do think that we've met that criteria. To avoid splitting precincts and municipalities. Splitting municipalities is not an issue at all. Hephzibah and Blythe remain totally intact. Splitting precincts, there are a few instances where precincts where precincts were split, but we certainly tried to keep that to a minimum. We have also looked at how the newly-proposed Congressional House and Senate lines run through Richmond County and have made every attempt when precincts were split to perhaps follow splits that were already created by those district lines, and we've looked at that very carefully. Preserving communities of interest. We've been cognizant of communities of interest as we go through, and I guess that is really a decision for this group to make. I think that you have achieved that by trying to minimize split precincts, trying to minimize splitting neighborhoods when possible. Mr. Speaker; [inaudible] I 8 I Ms. Bailey: I would think that a definition for that would be pretty subjective, you know, depending on what a particular individual considers a community of interest. I would certainly think that a neighborhood and a municipality are communities of interest. Outside of that, coming from an economic standpoint, there perhaps may be other definitions as well. The next criteria that the committee set was to protect the incumbents to make sure that they were drawn into their individual districts on both School Board and Commission, and that criteria has been met. To minimize voter confusion, I think quite frankly this committee has done a very good job with that and that we're going to have very few instances where voters will have to pick up and move to another precinct. There is going to be some of it, yes, but I think that we've been able to hold that to a minimum. And quite frankly, looking back to the 1992 redistricting, when we grew from 60 precincts in Richmond County to 92, this is much better. Much better. To maximize voter convenience. Again, it goes back to what I just said, that we don't have, that we're not going to have a whole lot of instances where voters are going to have to pick up and move to another precinct, again knowing that there will be some of that. Of course we do have voters that are going to be changing Representatives, but at least their polling place will be the same, which will help. Each voter in the county and in fact in the state will be receiving a new precinct identification card that will list on it all of their new district numbers, and that way they will at least know their district assignment. It doesn't tell them who in particular their Representative is, but that's what we're there for. They can call us and we can sure tell them. The next criteria was the deviation in size of districts. That goes back to the one man/one vote issue. As the attorneys' report indicated, the term the Reapportionment Office said when looking at this plan was that we were very tight on deviation, meaning that we were very close to zero, which is a good thing. I think only in one instance in fact -- in fact we didn't go over 2%. We're right at 2% in one district. Other than that, we're plus or minus less than 2% in every district, and that's good. And that certainly meets the criteria. The next criteria was to follow recognizable geographical boundaries. We have done that. In fact, that's a legal requirement that there was no option but to do, so that criteria has been met. The last criteria was to try to keep neighborhoods intact if possible, and I think that we have made an effort to do that as well. I I Mr. KuWke: Okay. Any questions directed to Ms. Bailey? Okay. Discussion 9 Set Next Meeting Mr. Kuhlke: What I would like to do is -- we're getting ready to adjourn this meeting. Short meeting. I would like to call a meeting for next Tuesday morning at 8: l5. Some of the Board of Education people I think have been out of town. I think everybody needs to have a little time to digest what Lynn has given to us today, and she's done a good job. I think she's done what she was directed to do. The purpose of that meeting next Tuesday morning is going to be one thing, and that's to vote on a map. What I would like to ask Ms. Bonner to do is to put the redistricting map on the Commission agenda for next Tuesday. But, Mayor Pro Tem, by putting that on the map, since we won't have an adjournment next Tuesday, to direct her to have this on the agenda just prior to us adopting our budget, which may be December 31, does that make sense to you? Mr. Mays: I tell you what, this one is moving a heck of a lot better than the other one. I think the map is going to be fme. You may want to put in [inaudible]. I Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I think I just want to hold it to the end of the agenda, but if you'd do that, Ms. Bonner. And Ms. Bailey, what I would like for you to -- I hate to throw a lot of work on you, but I would like a package of Revision 2, the Population Summary, a copy of the criteria, and maybe some explanation of terms put in a package for each School Board member, each Commissioner, the Mayor, the Attorneys obviously, and every member of the Delegation, to be able to pass those to the chairmen of these committees next Tuesday morning for distribution to their representatives, assuming that the map is passed. I Ms. Bailey: That's fine. I can do that. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Any other business that we need to bring? Mr. Colclough: What time was the meeting on the 18th? Mr. KuWke: At 8:15. And it will be a short meeting. Anything else? Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir? I 10 I Mr. Mays: One think that I think -- fIrst, let me thank you as chairman for -- again, we've gotten through another round of what I call the best reapportionment meetings in Georgia, and folk can take note that you've done a very good job with this, as well as Ms. Bailey and her staff, as well as our own Clerk in terms of what we're doing here. But I would encourage -- and this is just for the Commissioners -- some who have not been on this committee have come and sat in from time to time, and I think that we are getting close to the time now to vote on a map. I would encourage them to look closely at what's there and if the comments, they want to either -- I think we've tried to cover everything and then some, but if they need to have the comments, to bring them to you prior to that meeting, and if they need to ask Ms. Bailey some questions, her office is open to them, so that -- we've been running very smoothly with this, I think when we've asked to make certain changes they've been done and been in here by the time of the meeting. I think from our side of the fence, I say that, our side, the Commission side, that if we do that I think we'll be in a position to at least be supportive on what we do and be able to do it in an unanimous fashion. I think this will go a long way toward getting that part out of the way. I Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir? Mr. Speaker: I think in light of that we should -- no doubt this is an individual feeling for each person that's going to be running. I would hope that you would allow each individual holding the position to be in that last meeting, to see if they have comments that way that they specifically want to say in public and won't be misconstrued, middle man bringing it back to them. I understand what Willie is saying, but I do feel like that that last meeting, those people that are not on this committee, should be present to have their objective view of it to all of us that are sitting on this committee. At that time, we can decide whether we want to vote on that map or not. My feeling is that [inaudible] unanimous decision from your Board of Commissioners and the Board of Education, that will make our job in Atlanta easier [inaudible] rubber stamp it. If there is dissention between the Boards and individuals, then we've got a problem. That's my concern. I Mr. KuWke: I think that's a good suggestion, and Ms. Bonner, if you would, for the meeting next Tuesday morning, if you could send an 11 invitation to this meeting to every member of the Board, the Commission, I the Legislative Delegation. Is there anyone else that we want to -- Mr. Colclough: Members of council. Mr. Kuhlke: Excuse me? Mr. Colclough: Members of council. You didn't mention them. The Commissioners. You said School Board and Delegation. How about the Commission? Mr. Kuhlke: The Commission, yes. Mr. Colclough: I know you did, Henry, but the chairman didn't. Mr. Speaker: We want all three legislative bodies to be fully represented; is that what I'm hearing? Mr. Kuhlke: Exactly. We'll do that. Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir? I Mr. Speaker: I assume with the invitation a complete package will be given to each individual that you give an invitation to? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, I think-- Mr. Speaker: And in that invitation, you're going to be asking them to look critically at the district that he or she represents and the total plan that we are going to be voting on. Mr. Kuhlke: Can we -- Mr. Speaker: And I assume that that's going to be given to them tomorrow? Mr. Kuhlke: Well, that's what we'll try to do. Ms. Bailey: I was going to suggest that very thing. If Lena and I can coordinate, it will take -- I can get these maps together and things and I include that in with the notification of the meeting. 12 I Mr. Speaker: And they will get it tomorrow and not Monday? Ms. Bailey: Yes. Mr. Speaker: All right. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Cheeks? Mr. Cheeks: When you say complete package, we mean only the map that we're going to be looking at and the criteria for that and not everything? Mr. Kuhlke: Right. Ms. Bailey: I had planned to include the Population Summary Reports, the individual maps, and an overall map. Will that be sufficient, in your opinion? Mr. Cheeks: I think so. Ms. Minchew: Lynn, I was wondering if they should also have the existing maps, how the districts are at this present time, to compare. I Mr. Kuhlke: Can you do that? Ms. Bailey: Sure. Mr. Kuhlke: And the Population Summary from the existing districts. Any other comments? Mr. Mays: Yes, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mays? I Mr. Mays: I didn't want my remarks in any way to be misconstrued that I want to stifle any type of debate or input at our meeting, and for the meeting the members that are not on this committee, to bring that in for discussion. But exactly the format that we're going with, which Thursday is our day to get our information out and I think Lynn and Lena can get together on that on our side of the fence, I meant mainly if Commissioners -- and I'm speaking Commissioners only and I'm not getting into anybody else's business -- but I think Commissioners only, by getting that on Thursday, as we do with our normal information that we normally get, I was encouraging the fact that if glaring changes are there, something that raises a 13 red flag with a particular Commissioner, you've got that 45 day span in there to read it, think about it, whether they call you as the chairperson, whether I they talk to Lynn, whatever the case may be, but to try and come in where if there is going to be some objection to something that's there, that some of that's known, quite frankly, before we get in, and I think that will help us to move along in the fact that we are moving. It doesn't stop anybody from bringing a change or anything to the table, but I think if there is something in there that needs to be addressed, you've got a window of opportunity to try and do that, and to get it there, rather than us coming in, being set to move, and then into a marathon session about what needs to be discussed at that time. Because as I always say, ain't no secrets in the courthouse. So you know, we might as well, if somebody's got a question about it, bring it up during that period of time that we have going into it, and I think it will just move as smoothly as it has been moving. Mr. Kuhlke: Sen. Cheeks? Mr. Cheeks: In view of what the Commissioner has said and not trying to mirror what we do in Atlanta, but I think it's a good rule that we have in both the House and the Senate, if there are some Commissioners or School Board members, and it would take four, it would take the two that are trying to make a change, both School Board member and House member -- I mean Commission member and School Board, and then those where they wanted to make a change, could [inaudible] it between those four without p1ltting us-uuLof tilt with the..rule8-thaLw~use<llthink if the~Qul<LcluJhat, even -- and I'm just thinking out loud -- I don't think the Delegation is going to object to somebody critiquing their district a little bit as long as it was agreeable unanimously with those that's being involved. And that's the way it works in the Senate and the House. If I don't particularly like one little neighborhood that I'm in or my mother lives over there, and I can pull that in or take that out and put it over in the next -- and the man that's -- the Legi.slator's that it's affecting doesn't object, and they can agree to it, then the rest of us wouldn't complain. And that's just the rules we operate by, and I think that's a good rule. I don't think I see that, but if it's going to throw a hardship on the election committee down on the first floor, then, you know, you'd have to rule it out. But I think you ought to have some individual -- that's what Willie is saying and everybody is saying about Henry, saying let everybody get in here and have the input. I think the more input you get, the less chances we going to have of seeing rejection at a later I I 14 I date. So something between Ben and myself would not affect the others, if we want to make that change, I think you should allow that to be done. Mr. Kuhlke: Be ready to pop the map up next Tuesday morning, also. To the attorneys, let me ask this question. It's something that would affect the Commission, but not necessarily the Board. When this comes before the Commission, is it -- what would be -- would it be your opinion then if the Commission approves this plan -- and I think the School Board doesn't meet again this year -- didn't you have your last meeting last night? Ms. Minchew: Last night. Mr. Kuhlke: But my question is do we approve it and send it to the Justice Department and the Delegation -- what would be the appropriate procedure on that? I Mr. Wall: Well, you really have an option. I think the intent -- assuming that it's approved on Tuesday or whenever it's approved, you have a choice to make. You can either then send it to the Legislative Delegation, run an ad of notice of intent to introduce local legislation, and then have the General Assembly adopt the plans just as they will do with the Board of Education. That's what will happen with the Board of Education. There will be a notice of intent, and then a bill will be submitted. The alternative insofar as the Commission is concerned is that we then could start to advertise under the home rule and adopt it as a hole rule ordinance, and it would have to be advertised once a week for three weeks and then read at two consecutive Commission meetings and adopted as a home rule amendment to our charter and then be submitted. So passing it Tuesday is just approving it in concept to pass it on to the next level, whatever level that IS. Mr. KuWke: Any other comments? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir? Mr. Mays: I knew one of the lawyers would get some [inaudible]. I'm just teasing you, Jim. What I was going to suggest, and this is just one individual speaking, but I guess that's why we have meetings. We've got three bodies here, and one of the reasons we've got, I think, this three body format, is the fact that we realized that had, quite frankly, in the final 15 analysis two different sets of rules that could govern us where we are going, I and I think we've been unanimous in terms in setting the criteria, of getting that so far, and it's been a working group. It's my personal opinion, not of the Commission or anybody else, but just personal, that if we keep this package together, that it flows in the same line, I think it cuts any confusion because you do have two governing bodies, to a certain extent, that have a slightly different set of rules. We have a home rule provision. The Board of Education by law, and I stand to be corrected, yours is drawn and set by the General Assembly. That was the reason to get us into this format where we are. And I think to do anything other than that defeats the purpose and it cuts back on the harmony which we've already put together. I would suggest, and I know Jim has said we've got the options, but I think we exercise one option, that's being together, and it's worked pretty well thus far, and I think it's going to work. I think if we start to a point where we start submitting something directly to the Justice Department, and then we got, we still got a Delegation that -- which I think they're getting the message and we're together and they're going to vote that way, but you leave the [inaudible] -- Don and I have always agreed on this -- the less you leave to chance, the better off you are. And I think to a point that it goes and stays in one group package, it goes there to the General Assembly, so that if I there is a one-in-a-million chance that something changes, both local groups know where that change has been. We're not sitting there with one plan on the Justice Department's doorstep, and the General Assembly passes something else for the Board of Education. I don't think that's going to happen, but I think if both plans are together, then everybody's business is in one package. And it eliminates any confusion. Everybody knows where everybody else is going. And there is no deviation from where we've been thus far. And that's just personal opinion, it's not one of the Commission. But I just wanted to put that in there, Mr. Chairman. Cause this has worked real well so far. I think if we start getting at the end and split off in one direction and then we are waiting for the General Assembly to get through with their part of it and approving it, I just think it needs to be together. That's just my personal opinion. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay, Mr. Mays. The spirit of my question was this really, is by taking that action, does it speed up the process and, I guess another question, if it did speed up the process, would not the General Assembly have a chance to look at it before the final -- that was the reason I asked the question. You don't even need to answer that, Jim. I 16 I Mr. Wall: Well, there may be some small time savings, depending on whether you approve the plan at the Commission meeting Tuesday. There would 'not be a time savings, in fact it would delay things if you waited until December 31. I think it depends on when the Commission voted on it. But I mean there is a lot of logic in what Commissioner Mays said. If you send them up together and the Justice Department is looking at it and you've got two Boards that are submitting them simultaneously and the General Assembly has looked at the effect both on the Board of Education as well as the Commission. There is a lot of logic in doing it that way. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Ad;ourn Mr. KuWke: Any other comments? If not, we stand adjourned and see you Tuesday morning. Thank you. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission I I 17