Redistricting Commission

City Redistricting Meeting 01/24/2022 (Part 1 of 2)

Name: Cocoa Redistricting Commission City Redistricting Meeting 01/24/2022 (Part 1 of 2)
Start: 2022-01-24

Date: 2022-01-24
Status: Machine transcript available
YouTube: watch on YouTube ↗
Also captured via: YouTube mirror (eDDesajUASU) ↗ — alternate recording of the same meeting; primary transcript shown above.

📄 Read the City's record 📝 Transcript 🎬 Recording ↗

No City record on file — no AI-written text

The City's record

What the City's record shows

The City's minutes for this meeting are not on file in this archive. This briefing states only what the City's agenda lists. Nothing here is taken from the machine transcription.

No agenda from the City is on file for this meeting.

The recording's machine transcription is below. It is unverified: words and names may be misheard, and it cannot establish who acted or how anyone voted.

Transcripts of this meeting's recordings

2 recordings are filed under this meeting. They are listed in date order (parts of one day in part order), under the label, title and date the archive gives the recording. One recording's transcript is open; “Open this recording” under another reloads the page with that one open, and its passage links then refer to it.

Recording of 2022-01-24 (City Redistricting Meeting 01242022 Part 1 of 2) Partial transcript

Recording's title: City Redistricting Meeting 01242022 Part 1 of 2 · Date: 2022-01-24 · open on this page

Transcript of Recording of 2022-01-24 (City Redistricting Meeting 01242022 Part 1 of 2): 312 passages, 4,115 words

Machine transcription of the meeting recording. The words are the recognizer's, except where a passage is marked as corrected or machine re-recognized; most have not been checked against the audio, so words, numbers and names can be misheard. It describes what was said. It cannot establish who voted how, an amount or an outcome — the City's minutes do that (above). A time links to its passage, and “Copy link” copies that link. No recording can be started from here.

How this transcript was made. New machine transcription of the whole recording, with 7 voices separated from the audio. 3 short machine repair(s) (3 word(s)) are labelled in place, with the original words beside them: an ordinary word was replaced only where two further machine readings agreed on a different one. Checks run on this transcript: the recognizer's own warning signs, whether a voice was detected where the words are and a language review for likely mishearings. A second, independent machine reading was compared with it word by word: the same words for 95.4% of 4,011 content words. Dotted words (73 places) are ordinary wording differences: hover or tap to see the other reading. 85 passages (18% of the words) are marked suspect: their words are not shown ("unclear audio") and support no statement: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ; the language review questioned them; or no voice was detected there. Agreement between two machine readings is not verification.

Speakers were separated by voice. A plain name rests on evidence tied to that voice; “provisional” is a name from an earlier text-only pass and is not verified; “Speaker N” is an unidentified voice.

[00:00:00] Speaker 1

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the District Commission. We have a very

[00:00:10] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

short agenda in

[00:00:14] Speaker 1

terms of items on the agenda.

[00:00:16] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:16–00:00:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:00:21] Speaker 1

three previous meetings, and to review the final report.

[00:00:26] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:26–00:00:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:00:29] Speaker 1

and you also have the final report in front of you. And I think the first order of business is the approval of the minutes from the

[00:00:36] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:13]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:00:36–00:00:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:00:52] Speaker 3

Thank you, Mr. City Manager. ‸ I'm

[00:00:56] Speaker 4

sorry.

[00:00:57] Speaker 3

Excuse me?

[00:00:58] Attribution uncertain

[00:00:58] Speaker 4

have potentially one addition to the agenda.

[00:01:01] Speaker 3

I was... Okay. What you got?

[00:01:14] Speaker 4

I believe in our

[00:01:16] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:16–00:01:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:01:21] Speaker 4

would assess our redistricting maps against heat maps with ethnicity and a language preference and voter participation data.

[00:01:33] Speaker 3

Mm-hmm.

[00:01:33] Speaker 4

And I don't think we have done that.

[00:01:37] Speaker 3

So my understanding is that we were given the voter information, which is also included in the report and in the packages. We were given that information to be able to consider. ‸ And we had the opportunity to consider it. But I don't know if we ever took that information and discussed it openly as opposed to being given the information to consider in our decision making. So I'm fine with having a discussion on that if you see a particular issue. And I'm sure that if there is an issue, we could vote on it and resolve it. Okay. So just a moment. Let's get through these minutes. And then we'll talk about that issue. So

[00:02:35] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice

is that a second

[00:02:36] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:36–00:02:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:02:38] Attribution uncertain

I'm

[00:02:38] Speaker 3

sorry. So you made a motion to... Could you explain your motion just very briefly? Your motion is to...

[00:02:47] Speaker 4

Understand why our... I don't know how to make this

[00:02:53] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

motion. I

[00:02:54] Speaker 4

want to have a discussion about why we did... Why we are not looking at heat maps. This was the first... You know, pictures are worth a thousand words. And it's one thing to look at tabular data. And it's another thing to see a distribution visually. That's why it's... ‸ This set of data is very well suited to visualization on a map. And I think that's... In fact, you made the initial request for it in our first meeting.

[00:03:22] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:22–00:03:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:03:26] Speaker 4

that. And Mr. Beach.

[00:03:27] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:27–00:03:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:03:32] Speaker 4

We had quite a long discussion.

[00:03:33] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:33–00:03:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:03:36] Speaker 4

And just to make sure that we were... Had been responsible. And I think we agreed that it was all right to do this at the end. That no one was intending to... Use this data to manipulate our process. But just to make sure that we were... We had done it right. And it seems like we've lost that continuity from the beginning.

[00:03:58] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

And

[00:03:59] Speaker 4

if everyone agrees not to do it, okay. I'm still asking that we do it. I think we should have. But I just want to make sure that I have followed up and said we did agree. I think it's important we didn't do it. I will go with what the group says in this. But I ‸ just want us to be mindful.

[00:04:19] Speaker 3

Absolutely. That's more than fair.

[00:04:22] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Mr. Chair, can I read you the motion as amended and approved from that meeting? Sure. And again, with all due respect, this is what is recorded as

[00:04:37] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:04:37–00:04:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:04:42] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice

It says,

[00:04:42] Attribution uncertain

motion

[00:04:43] Speaker 1

was amended to request voting data as it relates to party affiliation and voting data for the last three elections for the information being made available at the final meeting before the final voting presentation of the report.

[00:04:59] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:06]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:04:59–00:05:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:05:05] Speaker 1

the report ‸ that she submitted. And that was your amended motion.

[00:05:12] Speaker 3

Thank you, sir. And I

[00:05:15] Speaker 4

would like to comment. Sure. Yep. In fact, that motion came out of an extended conversation throughout the meeting.

[00:05:22] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:22–00:05:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:05:26] Speaker 4

because I thought, what's happened? Why aren't we going to do this? And the first request was from ‸ chair. In order to assist us in complying with the consent decree, will there be a map that maps out specific minority communities? I saw a breakdown of demographics, but I didn't see anything that pinpointed specific minority communities so that we could draw those lines and

[00:06:00] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:06:00–00:06:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:06:01] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:06:01–00:06:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:06:03] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:06:03] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:06:03–00:06:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:06:05] Speaker 4

would be capable based on the data provided in the census of creating a heat map based on ethnicity so that we were able to see the distribution of various populations across the district and that we could zoom in to a very fine level of granularity.

[00:06:18] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:06:18–00:06:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:06:21] Speaker 4

fact, it wasn't possible with the census data, but that ‸ was part of why we asked for it from the supervisor of elections. Later in minute 53, I asked again, do you think it is necessary for Mr. Burke to, ‸ I do think it is necessary for Mr. Burke to provide that data

[00:06:41] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:06:41–00:06:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:06:46] Speaker 4

So ‸ that motion evolved. I think there was perhaps confusion about what is data, what is data that is developed in support of a GIS map layer.

[00:06:57] No voice detected

[00:06:57] Speaker 4

again, I just want, I want to raise this because I think it was important that we did it, but I will go with the group.

[00:07:05] Speaker 2

Understood. Mr. Chair, if I may. Yes. My first, I'll say that I was not expecting to have this discussion today, so I did not go back and review the video in detail, but I can tell you that my recollection from the meeting at which the supervisor of elections data was, was provided was that we looked at those things. We went through and actually commented on certain pages

[00:07:33] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:33–00:07:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:07:37] Speaker 2

and we also had some tabular data that was attached to some of the maps that we looked at. And my personal comment was that I was able to visualize ‸ these things based on the tabular data in front of me, and I personally didn't feel the need to have a separate map developed just to show those things. There was some discussion that ensued, and I think I had other members of the board agree with that.

[00:08:04] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:04–00:08:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:08:06] Speaker 2

that we had the information that was requested, and we were able to work with that without having to generate yet another map. And also with regard to compliance with the requirements of the consent decree, it was fairly clear that the consent decree, which affects only District 1, was well in compliance because we had no substantial change to the boundaries of District 1, and that the neighborhoods that were of concern to District 1 within the consent decree context were intact and well represented based on the overall numbers.

[00:08:46] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:46–00:08:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:08:48] Speaker 3

I think at this time we have enough discussion to call this matter to a vote.

[00:08:53] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:06]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:53–00:08:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:09:00] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Actually, I didn't make a motion. I just wanted us to have a discussion as to what happened. Oh,

[00:09:04] Speaker 3

that was it?

[00:09:05] Speaker 4

That's it.

[00:09:05] Speaker 3

Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Okay. Well, it sounds like we've had that discussion, so let's move on to the December 14th meeting minutes. I just have a small correction on page 4.

[00:09:30] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:30–00:09:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:09:30] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:09:30] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

[00:09:32] Speaker 3

that page

[00:09:33] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:33–00:09:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:09:39] Speaker 3

Because I think my words are confused a little bit and I want to make sure that my words are very clear. On the second line ‸ it says,

[00:09:48] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:48–00:09:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:09:54] Speaker 3

And it should reflect what he is against is not giving them all respect. And so if we could just remove the first not after he is, I think it would accurately reflect my words. Because that first not would cancel out. You know what I'm talking about. And so I am fine with accepting those minutes with that minor correction. Are there any other, is there any other discussion as

[00:10:28] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:28–00:10:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:10:33] Speaker 4

I have three minor corrections also.

[00:10:36] Speaker 3

Okay.

[00:10:37] Speaker 4

Page 3.

[00:10:38] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:38–00:10:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:10:38] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:10:42] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:42–00:10:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:10:43] No voice detected · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

[00:10:44] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:10:48] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

In the middle of that paragraph.

[00:10:50] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:50–00:10:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:10:50] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:10:50] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:10:50] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

or beginning with? Beginning

[00:10:52] Speaker 4

with Vice Chair Riggs.

[00:10:53] Speaker 3

Okay.

[00:10:55] Speaker 4

It is upward, remove the comma, replace it with a slash, upward, northward, and then change or to and. So it should read, happen upward, northward, and westward.

[00:11:13] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:13–00:11:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:11:14] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

[00:11:15] Speaker 4

Following paragraph. Last but one line. After the comma. As she approached it. So strike did not. And then

[00:11:33] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:33–00:11:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:11:36] Speaker 4

So it would read as she approached it from a logical perspective.

[00:11:42] Speaker 3

Understood.

[00:11:43] Speaker 4

Okay. Following paragraph. Strike the last but one sentence.

[00:11:53] Attribution uncertain

[00:11:53] Speaker 4

if someone just looked. And strike.

[00:12:00] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:12:00–00:12:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:12:05] Speaker 4

sentence. She feels they need to. So this would then read. From a visual and logical perspective.

[00:12:12] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:12–00:12:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:12:14] Speaker 4

you'll be adding this.

[00:12:15] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:15–00:12:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:12:16] Speaker 4

staff. Look at what the numbers say. Comma. And show them in

[00:12:22] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

comparison.

[00:12:35] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:12:35–00:12:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:12:36] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

[00:12:38] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

[00:12:46] Speaker 4

I'm sorry. There is one more on page four.

[00:12:49] Speaker 3

Okay.

[00:12:50] Speaker 4

In the motion. On that page. I believe it should have said.

[00:12:56] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:56–00:12:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:12:57] Speaker 4

them to maintain. An irregular configuration. Instead of maintain. More of a configuration. So the whole sentence should read. It will likely show numbers.

[00:13:14] Attribution uncertain

That

[00:13:14] Speaker 4

require them. To maintain. An irregular. Configuration.

[00:13:25] Speaker 3 · Machine re-recognized

Understood.

Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:13:25–00:13:26 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)

[00:13:26] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:13:26–00:13:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:13:27] Speaker 5 · Machine re-recognized

can I ask a

Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:13:27–00:13:27 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)

[00:13:27] Speaker 3 · Machine re-recognized

question?

[00:13:28] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:13:28–00:13:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:13:28] Speaker 3 · Machine re-recognized

please.

Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:13:28–00:13:34 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)

[00:13:29] Speaker 5 · Machine re-recognized

In relationship to these changes in particular, as well as your change,

[00:13:35] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:13:35–00:13:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:13:36] Speaker 5 · Machine re-recognized

I just want to ask

Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:13:36–00:13:37 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)

[00:13:39] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: the machine readings disagree here; a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:39–00:13:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:13:45] Speaker 6

Yes.

[00:13:46] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

You were dictating from actual.

[00:13:48] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:13:48–00:13:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:13:48] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:13:48] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:13:48] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

[00:13:53] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

[00:13:55] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

[00:13:57] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Right, ‸ summaries are different, but motions are dictated as stated.

[00:14:03] Speaker 6

Yes.

[00:14:03] Speaker 5

‸ So that makes it another motion, instead of it being the actual motion.

[00:14:09] Speaker 3

Understood. Um.

[00:14:12] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:14:12–00:14:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:14:12] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

When I read it, I mean, that does not make sense.

[00:14:16] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

I would have to re-listen to it.

[00:14:17] Speaker 3

Okay. Uh. Okay. I know that, I know that the correction I asked for was based on a grammatical error that changed my words. Right. I'm not sure about modifying the language in an actual motion that would have been verbatim.

[00:14:37] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:14:37–00:14:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:14:41] Speaker 3

approve it or not to approve it. Um. I think that we should probably vote on these things separately, since I see that it could be a potential issue as it relates to the language in the motion. Um. I would, um, move to approve the corrections that were not a part of a motion. Um. Um. Uh. Uh.

[00:15:03] Attribution uncertain

[00:15:03] Speaker 3

it relates to the minute meetings.

[00:15:07] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:15:07–00:15:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:15:11] Speaker 2

Second.

[00:15:12] Speaker 3

Here a second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

[00:15:14] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Aye.

[00:15:15] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes unanimously. Um. Um.

[00:15:20] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:07]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:20–00:15:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:15:28] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice

the motion on page four, um, by vice chair Riggs, uh, to modify the, uh, more of a, to an irregular, uh, within that motion. Um. Do I hear a second?

[00:15:42] Speaker 4

Can I shape the motion a little bit? ‸ I move to make this change so that it more clearly reflects the intention and good speech and does not fundamentally change the meaning of it, but it makes it easier to understand. That's my motivation. That's so

[00:16:02] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:16:02–00:16:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:16:07] Speaker 4

Okay. And best reflection of my intent.

[00:16:11] Speaker 2

I will. Go ahead, Mr.

[00:16:13] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized

Gray.

Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:16:13–00:16:14 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)

[00:16:14] Speaker 2

Mr. Chair,

[00:16:14] Attribution uncertain

[00:16:14] Speaker 2

would say that, uh, that change does not significantly change the, uh, intent or the, or the effect. And based on that, I'll second that motion.

[00:16:25] Speaker 3

Okay. All in favor,

[00:16:27] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:16:27–00:16:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:16:28] Speaker 2

Aye. Aye.

[00:16:30] Speaker 3

Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes ‸ unanimously.

[00:16:39] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:08]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:16:39–00:16:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:16:47] Speaker 3

from December, uh, the 14th, 2021 with, um, I believe five corrections,

[00:16:55] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:55–00:16:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:16:57] Speaker 3

Riggs and one correction by myself. moving on to the,

[00:17:03] Speaker 5

we must vote.

[00:17:04] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:04–00:17:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:17:06] Speaker 5

Uh, and then we vote as a group or do we, are we going to do this separately?

[00:17:11] Speaker 3

Ma'am?

[00:17:11] Speaker 5

Are we going to make the vote on each minute separate, accept it separately, or are we going to do them all as a group? Even though we've accepted the motions, we still have to vote that we accept the minutes. Ah, okay.

[00:17:25] Speaker 3

That's fine.

[00:17:26] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:26–00:17:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:17:30] Speaker 3

a motion to accept them in total with the corrections. At this time, I will

[00:17:35] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:35–00:17:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:17:38] Speaker 3

2021 minutes in total with the five corrections that were voted upon and approved by the commission.

[00:17:45] Speaker 4

Second.

[00:17:46] Speaker 3

I hear a second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

[00:17:49] Speaker 4

Aye. Aye.

[00:17:49] Speaker 3

Any opposed? Excellent. Uh, moving on to December 28th. And, um, I'll open the floor for any discussion as it relates to the December 28th, 21 meeting minutes.

[00:18:16] Speaker 4

I have minor corrections and a question.

[00:18:20] Speaker 3

Okay.

[00:18:21] Speaker 4

That came up as was reading, and I'm not sure the procedural way to address the question.

[00:18:25] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Okay. Maybe

[00:18:26] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

we can do that at the end.

[00:18:27] Speaker 3

Okay.

[00:18:27] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:27–00:18:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:18:29] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:07]

[00:18:36] Speaker 4

strike does things right and strike this on the bottom line.

[00:18:41] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

The final full paragraph. Okay.

[00:18:43] Speaker 4

Final full paragraph. Yep. Um, so then that last sentence would read, she wants to ensure that the commission and then add addresses. them correctly as add the districts will be in effect for the next 10 years.

[00:19:08] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:08–00:19:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:19:09] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:19:12] Speaker 4

Next is page three, third paragraph.

[00:19:19] Speaker 3

beginning with vice chairperson.

[00:19:21] Speaker 4

Yes.

[00:19:22] Speaker 3

Okay.

[00:19:23] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:06]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:23–00:19:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:19:29] Speaker 4

asked, replace that with asked to consider. And then instead of opportunity, have opportunities.

[00:19:43] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:06]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:43–00:19:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:19:50] Speaker 3

understood any other corrections

[00:20:03] Speaker 4

so then I had a question ‸ when we're done with corrections.

[00:20:07] Speaker 3

‸ I have a question

[00:20:11] Speaker 3 · Machine re-recognized

directly

Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:20:11–00:20:11 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)

[00:20:11] Speaker 3

at Mr. City Manager From page 3, we had a motion there to make a recommendation to council to consider application on

[00:20:21] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:21–00:20:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:20:23] Speaker 3

census district lines in a way that is more common sense and practical. My question was, has that recommendation been presented to the council?

[00:20:31] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:31–00:20:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:20:33] Speaker 3

for tomorrow. Thank you, sir. It seems like that has been done

[00:20:37] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:09]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:37–00:20:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:20:46] Speaker 3

manager

[00:20:49] Speaker 4

I think at the city manager and perhaps at Mrs. Neuterman and perhaps is Attorney Garganese listening in

[00:21:00] Speaker 7

yeah okay

[00:21:02] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice

super so in the first paragraph on page 3 I just wanted to clarify in the end it was my understanding that there is in fact no law that prevents a redistricting commission from breaking up a census district but it is a practical limitation based on an inability to get as accurate data and so I want I would like us to have that clearly in the records for future commissions just to understand because there seemed to be some confusion or and I am still not certain if ‸ that is a law or not a law

[00:21:37] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:06]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:37–00:21:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:21:43] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice

[00:21:44] Speaker 3

does make sense my understanding is

[00:21:46] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:06]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:46–00:21:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:21:52] Speaker 3

believe that it was it was clarified that it is not against the law to break up the districts but those voting blocks are what we use because otherwise we would have no way of ‸ going well I guess we could do our own census and go into the communities to figure out who would live where but we decided in our discussion for purposes of time that that would be impractical and that's part of the reason why we ended up making some of the decisions that we made so I believe that that was clarified

[00:22:26] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:26–00:22:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:22:31] Speaker 3

because I remember specifically

[00:22:32] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:32–00:22:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:22:39] Speaker 3

does anyone know where that would have been or what meeting that would have been done in? but I remember specifically hearing it

[00:22:46] Speaker 1

I don't know the meeting but again the attorney is on the phone. so if you Attorney Garganese

[00:22:53] Speaker 7

yes Mr. Chairman I don't recall the meeting when we had that discussion either We did talk about, you know the practical challenges to trying to split census blocks But there are also, you know very significant legal concerns with trying to split blocks we talked about the city charter requiring the use of the census for purposes of drawing single member districts in

[00:23:25] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:25–00:23:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:23:30] Speaker 7

for even attempting to split census blocks could lead to certain challenges legal challenges such as you know arbitrariness you know you know the census block data trying to split the blocks could result in like arbitrary or wrong calculations regarding population which creates a legal defect So there's a host of challenges for sure assuming arguendo you can even split legally split a census block

[00:24:09] Speaker 5

thank you

[00:24:10] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:10–00:24:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:24:11] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

[00:24:14] Speaker 5

also some discussion in regards to and it is mentioned here further discussion was held on the legality of splitting census blocks

[00:24:23] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:23–00:24:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:24:28] Speaker 5

um that we just heard from our attorney in regards to um challenges related to if we are to go in and create something that did not exist without proper administration and that is one of the reasons why i voted no

[00:24:47] Speaker 2

and mr. chair uh as far as whether this is a legal requirement or it's uh just a matter of practicality uh i look at it and say we know from reading the charter and from uh our attorney's statement that we are required to redistrict uh in accordance with the new census data that's been presented what was presented was from the census bureau they presented us blocks they didn't present us anything else uh so

[00:25:18] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:18–00:25:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:25:23] Speaker 2

blocks they gave us anything that we go in after the fact to try to parse or

[00:25:28] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:28–00:25:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:25:32] Speaker 2

what the population was on the day that the census was taken and so we would be basing our uh work on something that was not what is specified within the charter that's the legal basis that

[00:25:44] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:44–00:25:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:25:46] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

[00:25:49] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

that we have quality census blocks i

[00:25:53] Speaker 2

would love to have better census blocks to work with with greater granularity yes

[00:25:57] Speaker 4

okay

[00:25:59] Speaker 3

yeah i agree i agree the importance of the blocks being accurate um and uh and being able to parse uh more data out of those blocks to help people in the future to make these decisions um but um but i also think that uh that discussion was had um

[00:26:23] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:23–00:26:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:26:28] Speaker 3

uh open to the public um and so i'm not sure what the need is to include a more specific language as it relates to that specific point but if you're making a motion i will absolutely entertain that motion i

[00:26:42] Speaker 4

think we move so that for a future um redistricting redistricting commission they would have easy access to this as well it may not be specifically illegal it will be subject to legal challenge so

[00:26:54] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:54–00:26:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:26:58] Speaker 4

um just just to make it easier for who follows in our footsteps

[00:27:04] Speaker 3

understood um i'll entertain a motion to add language um

[00:27:12] Speaker 4

perhaps we could save that for the final report

[00:27:16] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:16–00:27:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:27:16] Speaker 4

it in the final okay if that if that makes sense yeah Because as I read these minutes, I thought, wow did we I want i just want to know what what the last word is on that. right

[00:27:26] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:27:26–00:27:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:27:30] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

these minutes since the motion yes was made during the discussion on these minutes

[00:27:34] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Yes, it's the top paragraph

[00:27:36] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

we can hold on that discussion

[00:27:40] Speaker 5

um chairman yes

[00:27:43] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

ma'am

[00:27:43] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

the motion was carried i'm not understanding why we're going back the motion was carried So it is going to council so for the discussion

[00:27:54] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:54–00:28:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:27:57] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

[00:27:58] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

[00:27:59] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

[00:28:00] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

[00:28:02] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

For what I spoke about? no what we've been talking about in the last five minutes

[00:28:05] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:05–00:28:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:28:06] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

[00:28:11] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice

be a recommendation for changes to it But I think we should also clarify what's legal and what's not legal. And just so that that you know it's already It's easy for people who follow us easier like

[00:28:24] Speaker 2

My sense of it is that our task for today and what our agenda has is the requirement to review the minutes and to make sure that the minutes that we are reviewing are an accurate representation of what took place. I think for the most part, the minutes are an accurate representation additionally we have video recordings that have the ability to go back and listen to every word that was said I don't know that this is the place to expand or to change history

[00:28:55] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:06]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:55–00:29:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:29:00] Speaker 2

was acted upon We can discuss at great length what's legal what's not legal and all that. But that's beyond the scope of what we're supposed to be doing in this meeting that's my feeling

[00:29:11] Speaker 4

Okay. ‸ So what i I usually don't want to suggest anything for someone else's words in the minutes. So it's that top paragraph that says census blocks cannot be split. And I thought perhaps we should put something that clarifies there. So if someone is just reading these minutes that's That is why it got raised in the discussion of minutes

[00:29:40] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

which paragraph are you referring to? on Page

[00:29:42] Speaker 4

three first paragraph top line, all the way on the right

[00:29:52] Speaker 3

and you're talking about december 28th 2021? We

[00:29:55] Speaker 4

are on... starting

[00:29:57] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

with commission member green

[00:29:58] Speaker 4

yes Starting with

[00:30:00] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:00–00:30:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:30:04] Speaker 3

I'm not seeing that. Yeah, I think you're looking at a different set of minutes

[00:30:08] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:08–00:30:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:30:10] Speaker 3

two not three

[00:30:12] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:12–00:30:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:30:13] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:13–00:30:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:30:14] Speaker 3

oh ‸ really ‸ that's interesting you have different numbered pages

[00:30:21] Speaker 4

All right, I don't want to belabor it.

[00:30:23] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:23–00:30:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:30:25] Speaker 4

had to go around around on it a little bit, I thought we could just nail it down. But if if we're having trouble, that's okay. let's move on

[00:30:33] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

‸ I was confused because your your pages are numbered differently than mine. So

[00:30:37] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:37–00:30:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:30:41] Speaker 6

okay for me

[00:30:42] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:42–00:30:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:30:45] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice

um And so your suggestion is that there be clarification as it relates to uh that particular line um that includes basically the language that um

[00:30:59] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:59–00:31:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:31:01] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice

um stated as it relates to those black

[00:31:04] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:04–00:31:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:31:04] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

[00:31:05] Speaker 3

um uh I'll entertain that motion. um Do I hear a second?

[00:31:09] Speaker 4

[00:31:10] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:10–00:31:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:31:13] Speaker 4

[00:31:14] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:14–00:31:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:31:14] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Transcript revision built 2026-10-27T10:15:52 · 3,350 ordinary words, 739 in suspect passages, 26 machine re-recognized.

Recording of 2022-01-24 (City Redistricting Meeting 01242022 Part 2 of 2) Partial transcript

Recording's title: City Redistricting Meeting 01242022 Part 2 of 2 · Date: 2022-01-24 · Open this recording

Transcript of Recording of 2022-01-24 (City Redistricting Meeting 01242022 Part 2 of 2): 332 passages, 4,178 words

How this transcript was made. New machine transcription of the whole recording, with 7 voices separated from the audio. 10 short machine repair(s) (11 word(s)) are labelled in place, with the original words beside them: an ordinary word was replaced only where two further machine readings agreed on a different one. Checks run on this transcript: the recognizer's own warning signs, whether a voice was detected where the words are and a language review for likely mishearings. A second, independent machine reading was compared with it word by word: the same words for 92.6% of 3,992 content words. Dotted words (96 places) are ordinary wording differences: hover or tap to see the other reading. 85 passages (22% of the words) are marked suspect: their words are not shown ("unclear audio") and support no statement: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ; the language review questioned them; or no voice was detected there. Agreement between two machine readings is not verification.

[00:00:01] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:00:01–00:00:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:00:01] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:00:01] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:08]

[00:00:14] Speaker 2

I think this was a great start, and I was very happy to see the census blocks listed in the back. So that if you do a quick scan through, you can see kind of what they're like. So I thought it was, that was, thank you for including that.

[00:00:32] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:06]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:00:32–00:00:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:00:38] Speaker 2

that we

[00:00:38] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:00:38–00:00:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:00:44] Speaker 2

outset, and it was the principles that

[00:00:47] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized

we're

Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:00:47–00:00:47 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)

[00:00:47] Speaker 2

asked to consider as we went through this. It felt like that was an important part of the methodology. Pardon me?

[00:00:58] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:58–00:01:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:01:03] Speaker 2

It would. Well, I'm not sure if it goes in

[00:01:05] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized

that

Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:01:05–00:01:05 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)

[00:01:05] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:01:05–00:01:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:01:08] Speaker 2

where they list the charter requirements, and then he gave us a slide that talked about the principles that we were supposed to also be looking at. Okay.

[00:01:20] Speaker 1

Just a moment, please. I believe that Mr. City Manager is saying that it's in there. Let's first see and make sure it's in there. And if it is, if there's an issue with where it is, we can have a discussion about that.

[00:01:32] Speaker 3

I know what principles she's talking about there. There was a PowerPoint presentation. Yes. By the attorney.

[00:01:38] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:01:38–00:01:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:01:42] Speaker 3

Yeah. Okay.

[00:01:44] Speaker 2

‸ Yeah. So then the next thing that I found was that we talked, it starts to talk about methodology. And there are a couple pieces in the methodology I think we should break out. One is schedule, because I didn't, it looks like we actually had two schedule requirements, that a redistricting commission has to meet at least 120 days before the next city council election. But we also had the requirement that we were felt under the gun for, which was by 120 days after appointment. And so if those are in fact both requirements, that might be.

[00:02:22] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:08]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:22–00:02:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:02:30] Speaker 2

into methodology and be set apart, that there be a paragraph for schedule.

[00:02:37] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:37–00:02:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:02:41] Speaker 2

I don't care if it's background or methodology, but.

[00:02:45] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:08]

Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:45–00:02:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:02:53] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

[00:02:57] Speaker 2

but just that we, we, we actually really had ‸ two schedule constraints and

[00:03:02] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:02–00:03:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:03:05] Speaker 2

helpful to have them pulled together up front.

[00:03:10] Speaker 1

Okay.

[00:03:12] Speaker 2

Additionally, in the.

[00:03:14] Speaker 1

I, I, I still need clarification on what, what your proposal is.

[00:03:20] Speaker 2

Okay.

[00:03:20] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

‸ What you're asking for is for the scheduling restraints as it relates to

[00:03:25] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:25–00:03:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:03:29] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice

as well as the constraints upon the city council to vote to either approve or not to approve. Yes. You're asking that that be. That would be done with that.

[00:03:45] Speaker 2

That it go into a single paragraph so that, that the, you can see what are the, ‸ what are the schedule constraints of the commission?

[00:03:57] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:03:57–00:03:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:04:05] Speaker 4

Mr. Chairman,

[00:04:06] Attribution uncertain

[00:04:07] Speaker 4

asked the manager, Mr. Manager, aren't those things contained on a single slide within the PowerPoint presentations that were given at the beginning of our task?

[00:04:18] Speaker 3

Yeah, I think it's in

[00:04:20] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:10]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:04:20–00:04:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:04:36] Speaker 3

It says the charter should be a district in...

[00:04:53] No voice detected

[00:04:54] Speaker 3

think if we just expand the

[00:04:56] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:04:56–00:05:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:05:00] Attribution uncertain

one.

[00:05:00] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:05:00] Speaker 3

section in the charter,

[00:05:01] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:01–00:05:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:05:06] Speaker 3

So I think if we just expand that, give you more verbiage on what the charter says there, it takes care of the issue.

[00:05:16] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice

And that's all included in the PowerPoint that the attorney...

[00:05:19] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:19–00:05:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:05:19] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

[00:05:20] Speaker 3

‸ Okay. And so we can include it there and again, if it's on the PowerPoint, we'll submit the PowerPoint by way of attachment.

[00:05:29] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:05:29–00:05:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:05:33] Speaker 6

think maybe, like you said, just a simple addition that the district and commission was required to act within 120 days of its appointment. That seems to be missing on page two. It has the, you know, the formation of the district and commission one year prior to the election.

[00:05:50] Attribution uncertain

It's

[00:05:50] Speaker 6

got the council date that they have to adopt within 120 days of the next city council election, but

[00:05:57] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:07]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:57–00:06:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:06:04] Speaker 6

Yes.

[00:06:08] No voice detected

Thank you.

[00:06:13] Speaker 2

So again, the goal is that a reader off the street would just pick this up and they could find the place that has all

[00:06:19] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:19–00:06:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:06:22] Speaker 2

One spot.

[00:06:23] Speaker 1

Perfect.

[00:06:24] Speaker 2

Okay.

[00:06:24] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

It seems like that is being taken care of with the expansion of that charter section on page two, as well as the inclusion of the PowerPoint from Attorney Garganese as well. Any other concerns or discussion as it relates to the

[00:06:42] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized

final

Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:06:42–00:06:43 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)

[00:06:43] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice

report?

[00:06:46] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:06]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:06:46–00:06:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:06:53] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

So we talk about where the data comes from and then the process.

[00:07:01] Speaker 1

What do you mean where the data comes from?

[00:07:02] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:02–00:07:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:07:03] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

[00:07:08] Speaker 2

boundaries were the starting point that is, it just explains what is the source of the data? You could add a heading with data set. It sounds like this is confusing. So.

[00:07:28] Speaker 1

Yeah, I was.

[00:07:30] Attribution uncertain

I'm looking

[00:07:30] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

for clarification. Okay. I am trying to best understand what it is. Gotcha.

[00:07:35] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Okay. Um, in approaching our process, we, there were two different things. One is the, the data that we worked from the census data. And then there were also the, the process by which we analyzed and reviewed that. And so I was thinking that perhaps because it's important that we just call out that data source. Separately as a subheading and have that paragraph be by itself.

[00:08:13] Speaker 7

Chairman, uh, the data source was the criteria, which we were given in regards to the census, as well as what we got from our, um,

[00:08:25] Attribution uncertain

Um,

[00:08:28] Speaker 7

a mapping that was presented to us, but, um,

[00:08:31] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:31–00:08:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:08:32] Attribution uncertain

I'm

[00:08:32] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

[00:08:35] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

up. So that's, that's why I'm, I'm lost here in that regard. I

[00:08:40] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

have a, a similar, I mean, thought process because I see here it says, you know,

[00:08:45] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized

Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:08:45–00:08:45 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)

[00:08:45] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice

GIS layer was gathered and produced by city staff, contained district boundaries, district identification for each boundary.

[00:08:50] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:08:50–00:08:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:08:51] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

[00:08:53] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

[00:08:56] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:08:56–00:09:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:08:56] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

[00:09:00] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:09:00–00:09:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:09:00] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:00–00:09:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:09:01] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:09:01] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

[00:09:06] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

and private entity that took that data and put it into the technology. So, I mean, it seems to pretty clearly state where the data is coming from. So, yes, no, I

[00:09:16] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

agree with that. I'm asking for a header that says data source. That's it right at the beginning of that paragraph.

[00:09:23] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:23–00:09:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:09:27] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice

source.

[00:09:29] Speaker 3

Okay.

[00:09:29] Speaker 2

That's it.

[00:09:32] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:32–00:09:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:09:33] Speaker 3

would that, because the data source still is the census. Right. And if you look on, these aren't numbered, but this is, um,

[00:09:44] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:44–00:09:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:09:46] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:46–00:09:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:09:49] Speaker 3

If the page that begins with population with parcel distribution.

[00:09:54] Speaker 2

Uh huh.

[00:09:54] Speaker 3

And then he, at the bottom of that, that paragraph tells you the software that he used. So he

[00:10:00] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:00–00:10:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:10:01] Attribution uncertain

uh,

[00:10:03] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

[00:10:04] Speaker 3

I'm wrong.

[00:10:04] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:04–00:10:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:10:09] Speaker 3

So the data set is always the census data.

[00:10:13] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

The,

[00:10:13] Speaker 3

the, the engine to analyze was the software.

[00:10:18] Speaker 2

Correct. And we also use the existing current district boundaries. So that was part of the data too. Just in a, in a report like this, nor you would just normally have all your data listed in one spot.

[00:10:31] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

That's

[00:10:32] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

all. That's what I'm asking for.

[00:10:33] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Well, you know, if we can, all of the stuff that you're asking for is contained and you're just looking essentially at format differences. Yeah, that's

[00:10:40] Speaker 2

right.

[00:10:41] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Okay. So, so what you're looking for is formats that are different, but not necessarily better.

[00:10:48] Speaker 2

Now I'm looking for, um, this document to consolidate.

[00:10:52] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:52–00:10:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:10:56] Speaker 2

This is the data that we used. These are the programs that we used. This is the approach that we used. And that would be, that would be how I would, if I were writing this, that would be how I would write a methodology. Right.

[00:11:08] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

And, uh, with, with five of us sitting up here, I would hazard that if each of us wrote this, we would come up possibly with, with five different, uh, formats and five different sets of headings and so forth. So, uh, not to say that what you're saying is, is wrong or incorrect, or it's just different.

[00:11:27] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:27–00:11:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:11:27] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

[00:11:32] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice

job that meets our requirements. And I don't see the need for us to edit them down to that level.

[00:11:39] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:39–00:11:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:11:40] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:08]

[00:11:48] Speaker 1

uh, that you made, um, we have consent here, uh, to include those suggestions, but this one, um, may have to come down to a vote if you are making a motion.

[00:12:00] Speaker 2

Um,

[00:12:01] Speaker 1

for the sub headings that include, uh, data subtitles.

[00:12:06] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Okay.

[00:12:06] Speaker 1

Um,

[00:12:06] Attribution uncertain

and

[00:12:07] Speaker 1

source point subtitles.

[00:12:09] Speaker 2

So I think I would just like to ask for a question from the group. Do you not feel it's important to make this document a little more scannable or, or tighter? And if you, if you don't, that's fine. I'll go with the group.

[00:12:21] Speaker 4

I personally don't see the need.

[00:12:23] Speaker 2

Okay.

[00:12:24] Speaker 1

Uh, needed. Needed. Needed. I think if

[00:12:27] Speaker 1 · Machine re-recognized

somebody's

Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:12:27–00:12:27 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)

[00:12:27] Speaker 1

looking for information on the source points, the subtitle or subheading that says methodology would be enough clue for them to know that what they're looking for is under methodology. I would think,

[00:12:43] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:06]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:43–00:12:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:12:49] Speaker 1

city of Cocoa for the most part, uh, uh, could, uh, read this document and have enough information to find what they're looking for. And, uh, and I don't want to insult anyone, um, by suggesting that, uh, that they didn't have the ability to do that based on the information given.

[00:13:14] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:13:14–00:13:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:13:19] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:13:19–00:13:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:13:23] Attribution uncertain

Um,

[00:13:26] Speaker 2

okay. So I, I'm, I'm happy to let it go. If we're, if we're roughly happy with this, that's fine.

[00:13:30] No voice detected

Okay. Uh,

[00:13:32] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:32–00:13:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:13:34] Speaker 2

‸ Main discussion is, um,

[00:13:37] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:37–00:13:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:13:42] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

[00:13:43] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Yes.

[00:13:44] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:13:44–00:13:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:13:45] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

[00:13:47] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice

that I sent to staff in, uh, December 31st or January 1st, um, in anticipation that it could be prepared for our fourth meeting to be included just so that it's part of public record.

[00:14:05] Speaker 1

Uh, so I

[00:14:09] Speaker 2

don't care if it's in the report or in the minutes and I, um, forgot, I made a mistake by not raising it in the last set of minutes that we were going over.

[00:14:24] No voice detected · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:14:24–00:14:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:14:25] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:08]

[00:14:32] Speaker 1

here in a meeting on the record?

[00:14:36] Speaker 2

No,

[00:14:36] Attribution uncertain

no.

[00:14:37] Speaker 1

Cause my, my concern, my concern is more for you than, than against you at this point.

[00:14:45] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:08]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:14:45–00:14:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:14:53] Speaker 1

report is not necessarily good for you. Uh, I don't know if that's something that, I mean, I can't give you legal advice. That's not what I'm here for, but I don't know if that's a good idea.

[00:15:05] Speaker 2

Well, how could it be a sunshine law violation?

[00:15:08] Speaker 1

Um. To

[00:15:09] Speaker 2

send it to staff? To ask them to, to prepare it?

[00:15:14] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized

because

Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:15:14–00:15:14 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)

[00:15:14] Speaker 2

the idea was that here's my proposal. I know that other people will want to see the actual numbers run.

[00:15:21] Speaker 1

Well,

[00:15:21] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:06]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:21–00:15:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:15:27] Speaker 1

copied in that the other members were copied in via email?

[00:15:34] Speaker 2

‸ I think I sent it to Stockton.

[00:15:38] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:38–00:15:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:15:41] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:07]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:41–00:15:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:15:48] Speaker 1

in and that would have been a sunshine law violation. And I, I think it would probably be best for you not to include a sunshine law violation in a public record.

[00:16:00] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

But, so. Yeah.

[00:16:02] Attribution uncertain

Mr.

[00:16:02] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Chair, my concern, my concern about this is separate from that. I mean, maybe it's a sunshine violation, maybe it isn't. But my concern is that, uh, with all good intention, uh, Vice Chair submitted what she thought was a, a good proposal that we should consider. Uh, we had discussion about that at our last meeting. Uh, ‸ after discussion, we voted not to include or consider that particular proposal. Therefore, having taken a proposal that was not accepted and didn't, uh, receive thorough public consideration and including that in the official record is not the right thing to do. Uh,

[00:16:44] Speaker 1

well,

[00:16:46] No voice detected

the,

[00:16:48] Speaker 1

I think I would disagree with that point just for one reason.

[00:16:56] Speaker 3

The report

[00:16:57] Speaker 1

basically, basically follows our discussion from start to finish and all of the potential changes and suggestions that were made along the way. And so if that was a suggestion that was made, but shot down, there should be some mention of it in the final report. But I don't know how detailed that mention should be.

[00:17:21] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:21–00:17:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:17:22] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

[00:17:22] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

[00:17:26] Speaker 1

sunshine law violation, then I absolutely wouldn't think it should be included. But there, there are, even in this report, there is inclusion of things that we talked about that was voted against,

[00:17:40] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:40–00:17:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:17:44] Speaker 1

A to point B.

[00:17:46] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:46–00:17:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:17:47] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

[00:17:52] Speaker 4

purpose of this report and the addressee of this report is city council. And our obligation is to give council a report of what our recommendation is and how we arrived at it. True. So that they can accept it or reject it. Uh, we will have as,

[00:18:07] Attribution uncertain

uh,

[00:18:08] Speaker 4

exhibits and attachments, all of the, uh, visuals, ‸ all of the maps, all of the data that we as a group reviewed and approved. And, uh, we will also have all of our minutes available and all of the videos of our meetings available. So there's no question what was discussed, what was accepted, what was approved, what was not approved.

[00:18:36] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:06]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:36–00:18:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:18:42] Speaker 4

That's true. So since we voted not to consider it, it should not go

[00:18:46] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:18:46–00:18:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:18:48] Speaker 4

them a list of all the things we didn't consider. We sent them a list, we send them a list of the things that we considered in our report so that they can approve or deny the final result.

[00:19:01] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice

True. I'm fine. Yes, sir. I'm fine. And, and I

[00:19:07] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:19:07–00:19:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:19:10] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

it's included just to say that it was considered and not approved and not included, um, I'm, I'm fine with that. But if it's not considered because it was not approved or included, I'm fine with that too. I'm neutral on the matter. Um,

[00:19:24] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

[00:19:24] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

specifically voted not to consider it. So, I mean, I, I'm, I'm perfectly fine with that. Uh, but I think, uh, we have a motion, uh, on the table, uh, for that proposal that was

[00:19:39] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:39–00:19:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:19:44] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice

Um, and so, uh, uh,

[00:19:48] Attribution uncertain

uh,

[00:19:49] Speaker 1

I will await a second.

[00:19:54] Speaker 2

I would like to amend that motion, especially if there's anything ‸ with sunshine law. The whole purpose of this from the very beginning was to have it be in public record and be available for consideration. So I'm not, that seems all backward and I'm not following it right now, but, um,

[00:20:12] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:12–00:20:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:20:16] Speaker 2

of public record and for us to be able to discuss it.

[00:20:19] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:19–00:20:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:20:19] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

[00:20:25] Speaker 2

option because it was a good option and it was compliant.

[00:20:28] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:28–00:20:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:20:33] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

[00:20:36] Speaker 1

think that since beginning, I've, I've lauded you on your advocacy for your district on behalf of your district. Um, I just think in that specific circumstance, your methodology, um, was, uh, potentially problematic. And so that's, that's the issue here. And without more information to, to determine specifically whether or not this was the piece of information that would have been considered

[00:21:02] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:21:02–00:21:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:21:05] Speaker 1

I wouldn't offer a second as it relates to, um, this motion and not hearing a second. Uh,

[00:21:12] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:12–00:21:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:21:14] Speaker 2

Okay. And now I do have a question because if there's a sunshine law accusation, I would need to know that. And I would certainly, I mean, the remedy for sunshine is also to put it in the public. So, right. I think, I don't know. I'm not an attorney.

[00:21:31] No voice detected · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:21:31–00:21:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:21:31] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

[00:21:37] Speaker 1

a sunshine law violation, but I don't think there's been an accusation. An accusation would be made to the proper legal authority, um, who could ‸ potentially levy consequences on, um, the

[00:21:48] Speaker 1 · Machine re-recognized

perpetuator

Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:21:48–00:21:49 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)

[00:21:49] Speaker 1

of that violation. I have not made a, uh, such a, uh, accusation, um, and do not plan on it. Uh,

[00:21:58] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:58–00:22:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:22:02] Speaker 1

you from potential legal consequences that you could face as a result of your actions and including those actions in a final report.

[00:22:10] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:10–00:22:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:22:13] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:22:14] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

[00:22:16] Speaker 1

this time. Does that make sense?

[00:22:19] Speaker 2

‸ It better make sense.

[00:22:22] Speaker 1

Uh,

[00:22:22] Attribution uncertain

uh,

[00:22:24] Speaker 1

any further discussion as it relates to the final report?

[00:22:28] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:22:28–00:22:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:22:30] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:22:31] Speaker 2

one thing. ‸ Can we, there are, I counted, there are 12 census blocks that are higher than 200. So that seems like, um, their

[00:22:41] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized

population is

Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:22:41–00:22:42 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)

[00:22:42] Speaker 2

higher than 200. So it might be helpful to call those out, um, and highlight them for council as the first target of a, of a look at, um, whether they're good candidates for, for being addressed, remedied.

[00:23:01] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:01–00:23:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:23:07] No voice detected · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:13]

[00:23:19] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

[00:23:20] Speaker 1

their next meeting. And so are you requesting to, uh, to add to the recommendation that was made to specifically, uh, identify, uh, uh, certain voting blocks?

[00:23:36] Speaker 2

Yes, that that might be, that might be a reasonable way to take, um, to take the most problematic ones is to look at which are those that are greater than 200.

[00:23:47] No voice detected

Uh,

[00:23:48] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:48–00:23:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:23:50] Speaker 2

lumpiness and irregularities.

[00:23:53] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Um, thankfully, um, three out of five of those voting council members are here listening today. And so, um, uh, they potentially have an opportunity to, um, uh, to get a head start on at least understanding, uh, ‸ that perspective.

[00:24:12] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:12–00:24:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:24:16] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice

um, adding to that recommendation to

[00:24:19] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

include,

[00:24:20] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

uh, ‸ specific emphasis on voting blocks that include

[00:24:24] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized

the

Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:24:24–00:24:24 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)

[00:24:24] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice

populations of over 200?

[00:24:27] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:27–00:24:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:24:29] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice

Uh, so back. Objection. Objection?

[00:24:32] Speaker 7

Well, I'm trying to understand exactly why are we, I mean, they are looking at the report as a whole. Uh, I think the council members can ascertain,

[00:24:44] No voice detected

uh,

[00:24:45] Speaker 7

once they have

[00:24:46] Speaker 7 · Machine re-recognized

review

Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:24:46–00:24:47 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)

[00:24:47] Speaker 7

the data,

[00:24:48] No voice detected

uh,

[00:24:48] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

where we are. And where we're not. And I just, you know, I, I just think that we're being a little too. It's

[00:24:57] Speaker 2

intended as a favor to them because we know how constrained their time is. And if you knew that, hey, only 12 of them are over 200.

[00:25:04] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

I think right now. Can I finish? Go ahead. Thank you.

[00:25:08] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:08–00:25:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:25:10] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice

Okay. Um, so I'm saying that,

[00:25:13] Attribution uncertain

um,

[00:25:14] Speaker 7

I think that they have the ability to look at the data. I think this is a concise, uh, report. That's not, uh, anything that they could not take a look at and make the determinants, uh, on, you know, where each block is set, uh, ‸ set as it is for now. Um,

[00:25:32] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:32–00:25:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:25:35] Speaker 7

to have to point out anything other than what we've already pointed out.

[00:25:38] Attribution uncertain

Uh,

[00:25:39] Speaker 1

my only issue is that the recommendation she just made has nothing to do with the report.

[00:25:44] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:44–00:25:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:25:47] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

[00:25:48] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:25:48] Speaker 7

in the recommendation.

[00:25:49] Attribution uncertain

She's

[00:25:49] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

talking about, she's talking about the modifying the recommendation that we previously made to council to consider advocating for changing the voting blocks. Oh, oh, oh. And so that doesn't have anything to do with the report. And so I apologize.

[00:26:05] Attribution uncertain

I thought

[00:26:05] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

she said,

[00:26:06] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

oh, okay. I thought she was talking about pointing out something here that exists within the report that we're, we're sending to them. Uh, in regards to that recommendation, I guess I've already spoken.

[00:26:20] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice

And this room. Yep. Yes, sir. Um, I understand correctly that we're talking about two different issues.

[00:26:26] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:26–00:26:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:26:29] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice

We are. There will be, uh, two agenda items before council tomorrow night. One will be this report. The other agenda item will be our recommendation that council do something to initiate a review of the blocks. Uh, I don't know that we have to do any more than just state by consensus that when staff reports out that issue, uh, tomorrow night to council that they point out there are 12 blocks that exceed 200.

[00:26:58] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:26:58–00:27:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:27:00] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

want to start looking when you look at it.

[00:27:02] Speaker 2

There we go.

[00:27:03] Speaker 4

Just

[00:27:03] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:27:03–00:27:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:27:04] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Right. So, so that's the recommendation that's being made. Do I hear an objection to that?

[00:27:09] Speaker 6

Okay.

[00:27:10] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices

Okay. Well, um, I think we can do this by consensus. By consensus, it appears, um, that, um, emphasis could be made on the recommendation, um, for council's consideration as to the, uh, districts that

[00:27:25] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:25–00:27:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:27:28] Attribution uncertain

100.

[00:27:28] Speaker 1

More, um, population.

[00:27:30] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:30–00:27:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:27:36] Speaker 1

Okay. So as it relates to the final report, um, it appears that three, three suggestions have been made.

[00:27:46] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:04]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:46–00:27:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:27:50] Speaker 1

That is to add a slide show, uh, two slide shows or two slides from the, um, presentation by, um, attorney Garganese. Um, uh, one that, uh, would include, uh, information on the 120 day, um, of the commission to present a report.

[00:28:12] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:07]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:12–00:28:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:28:19] Speaker 1

spirit, um, of such a commission as this.

[00:28:22] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:06]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:22–00:28:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:28:28] Speaker 1

the expansion of the charter section, uh, to include, uh, additional charter, uh, language that speaks to the 120 day reporting periods.

[00:28:37] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:37–00:28:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:28:41] Speaker 1

would be to include the, that schedule, uh, in its own separate paragraph with its own separate subheading and subtitle as it relates to the 120 day, um, reporting requirements. Um, uh, including those three, uh, suggestions that were approved by consensus. I will not entertain a motion for the re for the approval of the final

[00:29:06] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:05]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:29:06–00:29:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:29:12] Speaker 1

2021 ‸ redistricting process for this districting commission.

[00:29:18] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:03]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:18–00:29:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:29:22] Speaker 1

Second.

[00:29:22] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:22–00:29:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:29:24] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:24–00:29:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:29:27] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio]

[00:29:28] Speaker 1

Any opposed? The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. This meeting, um, is now adjourned.

[00:29:38] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:38–00:29:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:29:40] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:02]

[00:29:42] Speaker 4

Second.

[00:29:42] Speaker 1

All in favor? Aye. Unanimous.

[00:29:49] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:49–00:29:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording

[00:29:50] No voice detected · Unclear audio

[unclear audio — 0:01]

Transcript revision built 2026-10-27T10:15:52 · 3,271 ordinary words, 896 in suspect passages, 11 machine re-recognized.

Ask about this meeting

Use the search to ask a question about this meeting in particular, or compare it across other meetings in the archive.