Lancc Rejects the Redistricting Map

On February 4, 2012, the LANCC voted to oppose the “first draft” of the maps which were made public by the Los Angeles City Council Redistricting Commission (LACCRC) on January 25, 2012. The recently  prepared (February 25, 2012) “final” map (“the map”) of the LACCRC was presented  and  discussed, in detail, at the regular meeting of the Los Angeles Neighborhood  Council Coalition (LANCC) on March 3, 2012.

These deliberations raised a series of concerns for the procedures and practices of the LACCRC by which they arrived at this “new” set of City Council Districts (the map) for the City Council.  LANCC recognizes that the map is the core recommendation of the Commission to the City Council.

1.  LANCC is concerned that the “first draft” of the “final” map was made in three parts, each
     part proposed five City Councils.  These three sub-groups did not coordinate their efforts
     citing Brown Act concerns.

2.  LANCC is concerned that the first of the three groups created five San Fernando Valley
      Districts which remained unchanged and apparently “unchangeable.” This limited the
      flexibility necessary to create the remaining ten City Council Districts.

3.  LANCC is concerned that this “final” map shows so little change from the “first draft.”

4.  LANCC is concerned that it was the LACCRC’s practice to limit the time for each speaker in
     the Public Comments section of the Commission’s Public Meetings to 1-2 minutes.  
    
     Often, the Commission chair did not allow speakers to complete their “last” sentences in a
     purported effort to “hear everyone.”  It is true that the Brown Act requires that Public
     Comment be a part of all California governmental committees but there is no requirement
     that the committee do anything with the testimony received.  The LACCRC listened to over
     4,500 Public Comments and over 6,500 people attended their 22 Public Meetings but very
     little of this massive testimony was evident in the map.
5.  LANCC is concerned that reports from many NCs and from several Commission members,
      themselves, testify that the full array of written testimony and proposed maps was not
      readily available and, in a number of instances, may not have been placed into the public 
      record, at all.

6.  LANCC is concerned that only a very few NCs were contacted by LACCRC staff or by the
     Commissioners during their deliberations.  Therefore, an important and valuable exchange of
      information related to and effecting the processing of the proposed boundaries was absent..

7.  LANCC is concerned that, before the Commission began to develop the map,  the LACCRC
     Outreach Committee recommended that the NCs be considered as an important Community
     of Interest and urged that maximum care be taken to avoid dividing NCs between two or
     more proposed Council Districts.

     LANCC believes that the map and the Commission’s own data show that 32 of the 101 NCs
     were divided, that small pieces of one NC were often used to connect larger (?”assets” or
     ?”jewels”) areas and the fact that at least 4 NCs were placed in CDs where they did not want
     to be and where they had specifically told the Commission that they did  not want to be is
     strong evidence that the LACCRC did not act on the advice of its own Outreach Committee
     or respect the wishes, the relationships or the integrity of the NCs.

8.  LANCC is concerned that the LACCRC guidelines, published on January 11, 2012, were not
     in adequate detail, were not publicized and were not effective in establishing legal, open
     and transparent guidelines for the Commission's actions.

9.  LANCC is concerned that the proposed City Council Districts show more evidence that they
     were created with the apparent intention of gathering “assets,” often referred to by several
     Commissioners as "jewels".  These "assets" or "jewels" tended to be voting blocks, economic
     centers and tourist attractions, etc. rather than neighborhoods which had common interests
     and identifiable needs.

10. LANCC is concerned that, in at least one case (that is; CD08), changing the boundaries
      resulted in a decrease in an African-American potential majority (CVAP of 65.7%) to below
      50% … a possible violation of the Voting Rights Act.

After hearing these concerns the LANCC made and PASSED by a UNANIMOUS MAJORITY the following MOTION:

Whereas, the current redistricting map was created in a manner that does not conform to law and does not serve the interest of the public, LANCC opposes the current map.