tv Redistricing Task Force SFGTV October 27, 2021 4:00am-7:16am PDT
thank you so much. ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the october 22nd, 2021, of the redistricting task force of the city and county of san francisco. mr. clerk, are there any announcements? >> clerk: yes. thank you, mr. chair. the minutes will reflect the task force members are participating in a remote meeting. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. each speaker will be allowed three minutes to speak. your opportunity to speak during public comment will be available to you by dialling
(415) 655-0001. and meeting id for today's meeting is 24963086800. following that, you should press the pound symbol twice to connect to the meeting. when you're connected, you will hear the meetings discussions, but your line will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up on our agenda, please dial star followed by the number three to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location to speak clearly and slowly and to turn down your television, your radio, or streaming device or whatever you may be using to access these meetings. alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. the e-mail address for the
redistricting task force is firstname.lastname@example.org. if you submit public comment via e-mail, it will be forwarded to the task force and will be included in our communications. you may also send your written comments to the clerk's office. the clerk's office is room 244 city hall 1 doctor carlton b. goodlet place. this contact information is always available on the front of any of our agendas. mr. chair. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. before we go to our agenda, i want to make a couple of comments to the task force and
it may be obvious, but i'm convinced needs to be said. i'm honored that every one of you agreed to do this and when i agreed to do this. i had to think about the time and the commitment that being on this task force would take. i had little advantage perhaps over most of you because i had been on the elections commission the last time that this happened and i saw and was well aware of the amount of work and time that it takes to do that. and i accepted that when we
were discussing these schedules at our last meeting, once wednesday was proposed and the wednesday that was proposed conflict wednesday another bard that i chair. i was going to ask my board if we can switch to another date. and, if not, i would have to take a leave of absence and i am submitted to it. while we know that we want to not affect each other's lives as much as possible, it will cause some interference with your normal way of doing things understanding that, everyone might not be able to make
absolutely every meeting. i'm not going to know what's going to come up with my life. i'm not young although my health is good. i have grand kids and so there are things that could come up and i might have to miss a meeting, one of the reasons we have a vice chair. i am committed to be here every time i can to arrange things and if you can't make a meeting, that's fine. we will go on but we have to be committed to get this done. i just think as chair, it needs to be said and we only have until april and that's going to go quick i'm telling you. it's going to be here before we know it, so let's make sure that we get the work done and
if there are any questions let me know. second thing is we met for six hours. i just want to be blunt and say that's too long. not that we're -- i just went through this whole spiel about being committed. so we should be committed to take whatever time it takes, but we've got to remember that it's not just about us, it's the public. it wants to be involved, has a right to be involved and we want them to be involved as much as we can. i am out right now talking to people, calling friends, letting them know i'm here and asking them to get involved with this so we can get input from every corner of the city and i hope you all will do the same. to that end, these people have
lives they can't put on hold. they've got to be to work in the morning. they've got children they've got to put to bed and then wake up and feed and get to school and drop them off and get to the job. so what i want to propose to us as we go forward and adopt what many of the body of san francisco have is that when we're dealing with an item as each of us speak on an item that none of us will speak again until all the members have an opportunity to speak once and ask their question or make their statement. and then, after that, then we can go into a second round where people can continue their discussion with it in mind -- i don't want to get any hard fast rules set, but that we would keep in mind the economy of our
conversation and of our words. if we can do that, i think we can move the process and secondly, besides the published commitment, i don't want to wear the public out. and i don't want to tear them down if they come and stay to the end of four, five, six-hour meetings, there's a chance we might not get them back again and we certainly do not want that to happen. so i hope that we can, you know accept this and then continue to work together in good humor to get as much to get not as much of this work or all of the work done that we need to get done. if that's okay with everyone, mr. clerk, we can proceed to the next item which i think is your job. >> clerk: mr. chair, thank you. item number one is a roll call. members of the redistricting
task force, when you hear your name, please indicate that you are present. [roll call] mr. chair, all members are present. >> chairman: wonderful. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. mr. clerk, we can move to item number two. >> clerk: agenda item number two is approval of the minutes of the october 4, 2021, special meeting.
this is a discussion and action item and we'll be taking public comment on the minutes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on the minutes should call the public comment number which is (415) 655-0001. enter the meeting id of 24963086800. press the pound symbol twice to connect to the meeting and then press the star key followed by the number three to enter the queue to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chairman: okay. very good. we can move to a vote on this item or do we do that after public comment? >> clerk: we would take actions after we've taken public comment, mr. chair. and i'm seeing that member
pierce is presenting be. >> commissioner: i make a motion to adopt the minutes. can i do that right now, mr. clerk, or do we have to take public comment. >> clerk: i can record your motion now. >> commissioner: i'll withdraw. we can wait. >> clerk: thank you for that. member lee has something. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you clerk carroll. i have two amendments again. item number one, please correct member hernandez gill's name. and item number nine, please amend to read 'there being no
further business, vice chair reiner adjourned the meeting at 11:04 p.m.' and i ask for a second. >> i'll second. this is member hernandez-gill. >> chairman: thank you. >> clerk: mr. chair, we can call the question on this motion to amend but we should do so after we've heard from the listening members of the public who may have additional comments. >> chairman: exactly. they may have a comment on the suggestion motion. sorry about that. should we move -- is there any public comment, mr. clerk? >> clerk: checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. if you wish to speak on this item, please press star followed by three to enter the queue to speak for those who are connected to the meeting via phone, please dial star
three to be added to the queue. and for those who have not yet called, the phone number that you will call if you want to provide public comment on the item is (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 24963086800. do we have any callers in the queue who want to provide public comment on the minutes? we're hanging on for just a moment while we get more information. >> mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. mr. chair, there are no calls. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. public comment's now closed. members, are there any suggested amendments or changes
to the minutes? >> clerk: so, mr. chair, i do record that there was a motion to amend offered by member chasel lee to change hernandez gill and that i make a slight change in the verbage for the meeting and i can make those changes based on the suggestions chasel lee is on the roster once again. >> chairman: mr. lee. >> thank you, mr. chair. to clarify, it is -- you have some the amendment to add in member nine, correct. but the amendment to item number one is to amend member
gill to member hernandez gil was the change. >> clerk: much better. i can make that change. >> thank you. >> chairman: appreciate it. should we call the roll on the amendment? and then on the minutes themselves or can we just make those corrections? >> clerk: let's do them serial. we can take a roll call on the amendments and then we can take a roll call on the minutes. >> chairman: okay. could we do so. >> clerk: on the motion to amend offered by member chasel lee and seconded by member hernandez gil, [roll call]
once again. >> chairman: thank you so much, mr. carroll. could we move to agenda item number three. >> clerk: agenda item number three is discussion of redistricting data sources and criteria for future district boundaries. this is a discussion item. we'll be taking public comment as part of this discussion. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this discussion of the data should call the public comment number which is (41) 565-5001. enter the meeting id of 24963086800. press the pound symbol twice to be connected to the meeting. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you may be unmuted and you may begin your comments. mr. chair, i noted that [inaudible]
research is on the line right now and i also should mention [inaudible] >> chairman: thank you. mr. clerk. ms. mcdonald from q2 data and research, our redistricting consultant, you're up. >> thank you so much, mr. chair. and members of the task force. i appreciate your time and thank you for inviting me today to walk you through this presentation. thank you also to the clerk for running this presentation for me. so, with that, we are going to talk about criteria and data for the next half hour or 45 minutes or so and then i'm available for questions. so let's go to the first slide, please.
second slide. hello. >> do you see it? i have it shared right now. >> yeah. i see the cover slide. would you mind advancing the slide to the next one. >> we should be -- >> it's two criteria discussion. >> is it showing that for everybody else because it's not showing it for me, but as long as you're all seeing it, that's fine. >> chairman: that's the one i'm seeing. >> wonderful. >> i have also sent copies of this presentation to all the members of the task force. [please stand by]
>> and keep recognized neighborhoods in tact. provided that the redistricting shall conform to the rule of one person one vote and reflect communities of interest within the city and county. this is the only time i'm going to be reading off of an official source. i thought it might be interesting to just look at the language in the charter. it already points us to our criteria. since we'll be talking about data, we need to be talking
about criteria because we need data to meet the criteria. back to the next slide, please. slide no. 3, if you're seeing it, criteria in more detail. the first one is the united states constitution. this is where we get our eco population criteria on. you'll see all these reflected in the language. i pulled these out for you to make it easier. the charter tells us in the city and county of san francisco, we should be trying to get one percent deviation amongst the district and up to fav percent e complying with criteria. this is is the federal voting rights act not the california voting rights act that you may have heard about.
california voting rights act does not address redistricting. what the federal law covers an the federal voting act could haves is the racial minority groups. our fabulous team from the city attorney's office will be talking about this later in more detail. the charter also tells us that we need to look at neighborhoods. we are to maintain recognized neighborhoods. finally the charter says we should be looking at communities of interest and that your district should be reflecting communities of interest. that's something we'll talk about in a little more detail in a few minutes.
on slide four, this is about data and redistricting. what data are we going to use to draw our line. which data are we go to go useie for our criterion. which is accessible and not so accessible. we'll be talking about this in the next slide. starting with slide five, please. slide five has a summary of the redistricting criteria that we just discussed. i'm giving you a snap shot of the data sources that we will be using. some of are available to us and others are not. what you see in black is the
redistricting criterion in question. in green you'll see the data source. we'll use the census data and specifically we'll be using a file referred to commonly as the pl194- 171. the results. census data that were collected last year. census day was april one in the year ending in zero. april one, 2020. it took the census bureau a while to turn it around an get it to us. that's the data set that we use
to equalize the population. the next criterion is compliance with federal law as i outlined on the last slide. we'll go into more detail in future slides. we need to comply with the federal voting rights act. the data set again is used for that. that's the census data. in addition to that what is used is the community survey data. voting age population. that variable is available by race and ethnicity. that is also used in this context. finally, the statements of registration and statement of vote. past voting behavior is used to
pass law in this context. the reservation of recognized neighborhoods. that available is not available through the census. the data is available via other official sources sometimes. that may be used sometimes. also data submitted by the residents via public testimony and input. there's the preservation of communities of interest. that's really important one that we'll be talking about quite a bit. our fabulous legal team will be talking about this in great detail later after i have concluded my remarks. the data from communities of interest comes from public testimony. maybe geography that is
submitted by residences. continuity an redistricting criteria. these are actually available, these data sources are available by the census. we'll go into a little more detail in a few slides from now. it starts to dig down into equal population a little bet on slide six. that's our first criterion that is underlying reason to equalize the populations in the district. it's a constitutional requirement. sometimes people refer to it as one person, one vote. essentially you want to make sure that everybody has an equal number of residents in their district. you don't want one district that has ten people in it and other
district that has a thousand people in it. if that were the case the district with ten people would essentially get more representation than the representative that has to take care of a thousand people. when we're done we should be equalizing -- we should have all of the district equalized in population. please remember there's a constraint in the charter that gives you some information on what that means. also what factors into this is the 14th amendment. the equal protection clause. our legal team will be talking about this in a little white. i'm not going to go into much detail especially since i'm not an attorney. i will pose the question, how week is week?
let's go to slide number seven, please. how equal is equal? there are different standards for different jurisdictions. what i mean by that is for congressional districts we have to be extremely equal. what i mean by that is we can only deviate from the mean by maybe a handful of people. luckily all of you will have a little more flexibility in particular since the charter tells you can deviate by one percent in general. if you have a good reason, you can go up to 5%. that will help you, it will help you to meet the other criteria a little better. by providing or diluting the
voting power of minorities. if you want to keep recognized neighborhoods in tact. i cannot emphasize strongly enough what an incredible gift that is to be able to deviate a little bit. if you have to be very very strict, you inevitably cutting neighborhoods. you're probably watching what the state does right now, they will most certainly have their work cut out for thesm when try for them whentrying to figure oe geography to get to one or two or three people in district
deviation. here is copied something in for you and hopefully simplified it a little bit. it was a memo that came for you that sent over the populations by district. you also see what the total population for redistricting is. this is all persons that were enumerated by the census last year with a caveat that i'll go over on the next slide. essentially for our purposes, our total population for redistricting will be 874,993
people. you're drawing eleven districts and divide your total population by 11. that gets you to rough 79,000 persons per district. that's where we would like to land when we're done. plus or minus 5% depending on whether there's a rational for it or not. on the right side are the districts. the population right now. this is is our assessment of who is in the districts now. many people are in the districts before we touch them. you see the percent deviation. these districts are well above and beyond most of them
definitely one person and some of them are just really overpopulated. in particular district six. if you want to look at this map together, that's on page nine. that's in a different view. that basically shows you that district six for example is 33 percent overpopulated. we have the area, the sun set and richmond that are under populated by district four negative eight point three nine percent. and negative eight point three one percent respectively for district one. we have everything else in between. essentially district three is overpopulated. you can basically see on that slide which way the populations need to move to be able to
equalize the populations. with that we should go to slide number ten. go back to our criteria list. second criteria in f3 redistricting. compliance with the federal voting rights act. we talk about section two. our legal team is here and will talk about this in more detail later. i'll mention a little bit of leng wawj. language. it prohibits on the basis of language or minority status. language minority as asian, native american, alaskan.
it does not apply to other language groups. european language groups are not protected by the federal voting rights act. it may be a minority but is not protected under this particular law. that's where we are with that. it prohibits practices that has a purpose or secretary of discriminating on minority status. it provides nationwide to all jurisdictions. compliance with it, anybody who reads the papers know this is a big topic. california is doing pretty well. we'll be doing pretty well here in san francisco of course. just a few more items about the
federal voting rights act. on slide eleven, you will see federal voting rights act and redistricting. the key term we need to keep in mind is vote dilution. electoral systems can limit the ability to elect a candidate of choice. this is typical language used in the federal voting rights act. by a protected class of voters. those are our racial language minority groups. in various ways. a larger electoral system can make it impossible for a large minority group when they vote
against them. our example speaks a little more to that. that is that single member trustee or district areas can be drawn in ways to elect a candidate of choice also. systems that choose to vote in this way are set to dilute minority strength. what is the section for minority district. we're on slide 12 has that is what is a section two or general minority district. what we talk about is generally the jingles criteria. it's a very important case that gave us a road map on how to
evaluate whether a particular area in a jurisdiction receives voting rights. three prongs that people talk about. the minority group must be compact and large enough to constitute a district in the the area. 50% plus citizen voting age population. a voting group must vote cohesively. the third prong is there must be evidence against polarized voting. citizen voting age population, that's the minority group that could potentially constitute a majority group in the district. this is a pretty complicated
area in your very capable council will be talking to you about this a little more. a lot of this gets done by your legal team and the consulting team who will then advise you on voting rights compliance needs. we'll be talking about this throughout the process of redistricting and redrawing the district for the city and county of san francisco. we've talked a lot about the voting rights act. supreme court came in at some point and said well people -- on slide 13 called race and redistricting. supreme court came in and said we need to limit a little bit the role race can play in
redistricting. there were some important cases here. race cannot be the predominant criterion in line drawing. you will note that compactness areas of interest are areas that we'll be following. these are criterion that factor into your process. as long as all of these criteria are taken in context with each other and they all play a role there should not be a worry about using race as a criterion. this is just to alert you to the fact that there's a constraint here. all of these criterion have to
be weighed against each other. most importantly there's one traditional criterion that's been very important and i'll talk about that in a minute. we can go to redistricting data. one question that may come up is why the census bureau reports different population totals for the state including the city and county of san francisco. i'm sure that many of you listening to this presentationor on the task forcd at the census data that has been released. their totals are a little off compared to our totals is that california has a law that
essentially tells us that we need to adjust census data. we have to adjust census data by taking persons that enumerated in facilities under the control of the california department of corrections and take data of those persons that were enumerated an counted in those facilities in 2020, we have to take those data and recalculate them to their last known residential address. that's in california just over a month ago. the effect of that, if you're looking at where the cdc r facilities are, in the state of california, the state facilities they are all in the rural areas
for the most part. it moves where they are incarcerated rather than where they originated. it artificially inflates the number of people that count for redistricting in these jurisdictions. california law attempted to address this issue and kind of move the power back to the urban area by making it a law to require jurisdictions to use the adjusted data. it's generally referred to as prison gerrymandering.
california has a law and instructed the california state wide database, that's the data that we're using. in the process, san francisco received a little bit more population for redistricting. we received for this process one thousand twenty eight people and that is a difference that you will see if you go to the census guide and compare it to the data set that we're using right now. you can see all of the data sets there for all the local jurisdictions in the date of
stal stal. the state ofcalifornia. the redistricting for the state of california contains precinct, race and ethnicity. american community survey data including citizen voting age population by race and ethnicity. under american community survey data, i should point out this not a data set that was compiled at one point in time. such as last year on census day or as current as census day. this particular data set was collected between 2015 and 2019.
that's a release that's available on the state wide database site. voter's registration. these are used to meet the first two criteria of our redistricting. additional data may need to be collected for voting rights assessments. your legal team will be working with us to assess that. we will keep you posted about the results and that will be done on that particular situation. next slide, please. neighborhoods and areas of interest. we're now at criteria three and four. data for three and four are not in the redistricting database.
these are data sets that you need to collect to some extent. neighborhoods vary in size obviously. there are neighborhoods available, of course, from your ranking department, the department of elections has another set of neighborhoods and they are not the same. there's some overlap. i'm sure members of the community and other neighborhoods, they may also have definitions of neighborhoods and may or may not correspond to the neighborhoods that you may have collected from planning and department of elections or elsewhere. they really do vary in size. sometimes people on the ground have small neighborhoods and just a couple of city blocks. you will see pretty much all
shapes and sizes under the neighborhood criterion. recognized neighborhoods and which neighborhoods will you use? will you be reaching out to everybody and accept information from everybody in san francisco who would like to tell you about their neighborhoods or will this be limited to selected sources. that's a conversation that you should have. communities of interest. this is a really big one because there is literally nothing available to you at this point. you need he to start from scratch. what are communities of interest? it depends on where you are. they are generally described as a geographic area comprised of residents that share similar interests. we're talking about people that
have shared interest. there's a case, i just threw this in here. miller versus johnson talked about actual shared interest. i like mentioning this because sometimes people come in and say, we can use existing data sources. we'll get a bunch of data from the census and exien these combe areas of interest. the question is will census data or data sets tell you something about what the actual shared interests are on the ground for the purpose of redistricting in the city an county of san francisco. i've looked at communities of interest that have been submitted for the state of californian people from san francisco have been participated in that process and many of
those communities of interest are much larger than the city and county of san francisco. or combine larger areas that you would need and respect as a district. they are really specific. they are best defined by people who are familiar with community. by people who live or work with the community. perhaps people that have businesses in a community. advocacy groups, residents, neighbors everybody who is familiar with the community within the city an county. interests don't have to be limited to your current situation. they can include common goals. people working to make something happen. the law does not generally limit
the definition of communities of interest except that california law says that communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties incumbents or political candidates. the charter does not have that limitation in there. that is generally a limitation that is used in california. i thought i would point this out. specific legal questions please direct those to your legal team. i'm here to talk to you about the general, how data an criteria interact in redistricting. we often take communities of interest in a couple of big brackets and talk about economic
and social interests. this is just to let you know one more time, there's really no limitation on it. this is just to help people wrap their heads around it. economic interests. common employment. people are all employed by the same employer or in an area where there's common employment or common economic opportunities or lack of opportunities. goals that people may be working toward to exphand oppor expand s or access to opportunities. people are organizing around scrolls. even though you're not drawing school district boundaries. people may say we're organizing around this school because there's something going on or we're using the school grounds
for meetings. you have to be open minded on this and figure out what comes in and weigh those communities of interest and see which ones can you keep together. the charter tells you have to respect communities of interest. try not to divide them. you need to know where they are and what they are so you can weigh this. schools often times people talk about a share culture. maybe shared language. maybe transportation. the sky is the limit here. goals may be improving recreational activities. preserving historic resources. sometimes you'll hear an overlap between communities of interest and neighborhoods. people come in and say this is our neighborhood and we're also
a community of interest. you get it twice under your criteria. sometimes people double up a little bit there. you're supposed to respect neighborhoods. that leads to slide one. 19. this is something we can all talk about as we're building your website and tawging about t how people can best participate. in general, think about the following questions. what bonds your community. what defines your community of interest. what is your mission or commonality. you can think about what's different out side of the boundaries of your community of interest. sometimes a community of interest, just really ends at a particular street because on the other side of that street thing thingsare very different.
it helps you define what the boundaries are are. we need to know where your community is located. otherwise we just don't know how to keep it together in the district. on that you need to create a map of your boundaries or write down the boundaries and send them over. we will work together to get a website going where there are various resources and instructions on how to participate and how to let all of you know that this process can be facilitated smoothly. this is one of the big tasks that you have as you go into all of your meetings is to let people know that this is a data set that you're building and you
really need people to participate so you know where your communities of interest are. the other criteria are met by available data already. you have very limited data on neighborhoods. people in the city of san francisco will also have opinions. you'll be surprised sometimes. everybody always thinks, we all think we know where we live. you start with this process and it's really great to get surprised by the things you don't know yet. other traditional redistricting criteria. we have other redistricting
adjoining corners. that's called point contiguity. california law does not like that. areas that are separated by water an not connected by a bridge or tunnel. this is something that your legal team can advise you on should that come up. with that let's go to the next slide which is compactness. this is a traditional redistricting criterion. there are thousands of ways to measure it. the caveat i would like to let you know about is commonly used redistricting tools that are out there. they don't measure compactness in the way that we're using it in the state of california.
please anybody runs nooz that, , let me know. hopefully you won't run into that issue if you're using that tool. there are other tools out there. don't by pass populations in favor of other populations. don't make it look funny. sometimes have you to make it look funny because that's just the way it is. if it looks funny people may pause and say why did that happen. the supreme court has really emphasized compactness in all cases. something may be somewhat off.
in your districts look funny, you have to be prepared to explain them or better have a really good reason for them. that's where we're at with that. that is my last slide. thank you so much. i'm here for questions if you have any. this is not the last time i'm here with you. i'm available to you. thank you for running the slide show for me. with that, i'm here for questions. thank you. >> i am unmuted now.
>> thank you for the presentation. that was great. what is about the five year american survey data for voting age population. how does that play well with the census. i'm curious how those meld together and how you deal with those differences. if that information is available at the block level or block group or something higher. >> thank you for that question. two different data sets don't really play together well. fresh data which is essentially
from last year. range data gets collected over time. it's generallily released on the block group level. they have made it available on the block to the entire redistricting data set is available on the same analysis. we're going to see some areas where there are going to be some weird numbers. numbers definitely.there's someh the census this time because they used a different privacy methodology. it changed the numbers in some of these blocks. i'm anticipating and i haven't looked at it in the city and county in detail, as we start to
draw lines, we'll probably see some areas that look weird. we'll figure out how to go from there. >> another quick question. i know that the census blocks are based on streets and whatnot. splitting census blocks in unpopulated areas. when it comes to a boundary runs in the middle of the block what is the census data. >> generally it's not a good idea to split a census block. i'm hoping we're not go to go have to have that conversation. you have that constraint of one percent deviation. the only way that you know really what you're legally required population is is speak
to go the population that was reported in the census block by the census. if you split a block, you don't know what's on each side of the block and who was enumerated where. right now a year and a half later by the time we're starting to draw, we're a year and a half out. it's not good practice. we should discuss it with your legal team. i'm hoping it doesn't come up. it makes for a really messy data set. >> one last question. when it come it documenting communities of interest, there's the 2011 report. i'm curious if there's a threshold for us as a task force to say this interest is the
reason we made this above one percent. do we have to define what are the communities of interest or what is the threshold for us to define. >> i think that's hey legal question. maybe your legal team would like to weigh in on that. i don't know if they want to do that now or i can do it after the presentation. >> the charter simply requires that the final maps reflect the communities of interest. how many communities come into play or what the size of them are. it must reflect. we can talk more about that. can you see in the 2011, 2012
report, there's no precise threshold. the maps need to reflect that quality. >> thanks for that clarification. >> very good. >> thank you for presentation. definitely learned a lot. use of the acs data, are we able to start bringing in other aspects for acs data like educational attainment, income, age of residents to better define what these communities of interest look like? >> thank you for that question. i think that's something you may want to discuss.
that's basically the question about whether you're going to define communities of interest bottom up or top down. the acs has limitations. some of the data that are in the acs are from 2015. if you think back on what was going on in san francisco in 2015 this is a new world that we live in. you need to weigh that and perhaps just look at it as supplementing. my suggestion would be what you can get from people in terms of participation. see what you can get from people on the grown. we should look at alternative data sources and see what is there and what's relevant and current enough to use. that would be my recommendation. i think we should have a
conversation about it. >> thank you. compactness is a passion of mine. i did research on this at ucla. if there are particular contactness measures that you have found to be more applicable towards the california level of compactness. >> you know how much measures are out there. >> especially with san francisco being such a dense area. the water. you start to run into a lot of common issues. for members of the public to go through on how that start it play in here. what sort of definition you found to be a little bit more aligned with the california
definition. >> i have to tell you honestly i think the reason why california ended up with its own definition is the measure that's are out there, they just don't really work for california. i think we're using the famous eyeball test. and honestly, i don't know how much it factors into our process here in san francisco for the reasons you just outlined. if you're thinking about the state and millions of people. the traditional compactness ideas that most people have in mind when working in this field. they are working how to measure population density in reference
to geography. i haven't -- i can't really answer that question by saying there is a particular one that works better or less good for california. i think it's very jurisdiction specific. in the end we're with the eyeball test, i think for the most part. thanks for the question. >> thanks for the answer. those are all the questions i had. >> very good. are there any other questions from members? >> thank you for that presentation. it was illuminating. it did bring up some questions. mostly clarifying. general citizen population. the census data made up of
children, non citizens, that sort of thing, right? >> that's correct. the census data has the total population by race and ethnicity. and voting age population. eighteen and over. the reason we have to bring in citizen voting age population, your legal team can address this more. case law has told us that is how we have to measure section two districts or the first prong of a potential section two district. that's why we're even looking at it. it's a very limited data set, honestly. if it were up to most people we wouldn't use it. it's a five year data set. in 2015 if you were surveyed and 17 years old and hadn't been
naturalized. two years later. you're 18 years old and naturalized. some some population groups, the citizen data is way behind. it under states how many citizens we have and this is something we run into redistricting everywhere. we're stuck with them because the law tells us we have to use them. it's a little bit of apples and oranges. with some careful line drawing and looking at this data, we can do a good job irrespective of that. >> i laughed a little bit at the
definition of the language mainority. asian language. i'm guessing that would be things like arabic and chinese, right? >> yeah. the federal voting act of 1965. it's been amended of course. it has its struggles. if people are defining their community of interest as a language community group. that could be a community of interest. let's go out and talk to eive and see what people need from this process. often times you don't necessary need the federal voting rights act to accomplish what you want to accomplish. just because a voting group is
reflected doesn't mean you can draw a new district. >> you did mention this question of defining neighborhoods. i'm wondering if you have anything around community benefit districts. something that's not related to population but businesses or in some combination with residents. >> that's something that we can all look at. that's something for the task force to evaluate whether it's relevant. businesses have absolutely factors in redistricting in san francisco. collecting all of that information and building a dawt a dataset based on that is realy
relevant. bring it to your colleagues and look at it together. evaluate whether you want to use it in the process. >> you did mention the website launch. i would love to be able to share with folks reach out to me with a rough time line. obviously there's a lot of information here. i would love to get some clarity around that. >> i have a meeting set up with rosy, your out reach consultant. i think we're talking about this later today. your next meeting or before, we're at the beginning of the process right now and just starting to put the pieces together. the website is going to be a critical component of this process. that will be how to find you and what comes next. i would anticipate sooner rather
than later that will be going live and you'll be receiving information about that. >> thank you so much. >> i'll try to be brief, i want to be mindful of your time. i know you talked about rin cars incarcerated individuals and how they are kowned. counted. unhoused individuals were they enumerated in the data. >> they are. some agencies reached out and
reflected them in the census data. >> i wanted to ask you about the access for the task force on the more granular data and having access to a database. is that through your firm or through the department of elections. do you know when we'll have access to that. >> thank you for that question. the redistricting data set is on the state wide database website. you can download it today. that's the data that's available for line drawing. you will be building your own data sets. we should talk about how to make that available. you're go to go get geography and data. we'll figure out how to list all of that on the website so everybody has the same information. you can download it and whatever
technology resources you want to use. >> my last question, seeing the population changes from the past ten years. i found it very difficult to conceptualize district six an how it has grown by 30 percent. would it be possible to throw together a handful of arbitrary maps so we can conceptualize a foot print of how these districts will need to change? >> i have to tell you we did this 20 years ago. i think i still have whiplash from the feedback we dpot from m the public. having completely uninformed suggestions, i always say if you have a lack of public participation, the best way to
get people to participate is to put out a really bad map. that is what this would be because we don't have any public input yet and haven't looked at the criteria and how to implement the criteria. you as a group should talk about this and whether you're ready for all the public feedback you will get based on those maps that we might be providing to you. that of course, could be done. we can look at the map an talk about how the district may flow based on the population. that's definitely possible. (please stand by)
>> where people actually live. >> that is an interesting one. it is an interesting question. that is going to be for you to weigh, you know. in general, redistricting is representation and where you are voting. where you are congregating may not be where you are voting or participating or where you need representation, but maybe it is where you need representation. i could see just thinking about this i could see it as a community of interest. i could also see it not as a community of interest, you know. i think this is a very specific case. for example, there are -- i will
talk about an area i am aware of in southern california. i don't want to talk about what i don't know when san francisco. there is an area in southern california where there is a specific southeast asian group congregates and meets there. it is a business hub, cultural hub, and people come there from all over. that has been defined as a community of interest. it is very important for people to keep it together because they are concerned that if it's divided into two or more districts they will lose the voice of representation essentially to make sure that particular hub can maintain the services to that community. i would say that is definitely a community of interest. most often what you find is
people talking about where they actually reside. i think there are good cases to be made for both. >> thank you for that answer. >> mr. chair, i don't see any further names in the roster. >> could we move to public comment in that case? >> thank you. we continue to work with the department of technology facilitating the call in system. members of the public to comment on this discussion call the number 415-655-0001. enter today's meeting id24963086800. press pound twice to connect to the meeting and then press star and number 3 if you wish to enter the queue to speak.
the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until you are unmuted to comment. mr. chair, members of the task force five listeners and two who wish to speak on this item. could you please connect us. >> it is david pill plow. i agree with chair townsend's remarks at the beginning of the meeting. it may be worth repeating at every meeting. i will take those into account. thanks to clerk and the staff for updating website with new documents and presentations as they become available including during the meeting in realtime. that is great and very helpful.
finally, introductions it is nice to hear karin again. it is a long time. great presentation. very thorough. i thought on the question of the federal rules that there was a maryland case that allowed more than population deviation of one or handful, but i don't have the specific site on that. anyway, that is a federal question. we are still with the 1% and 5% rule in san francisco. we are fine there. i understand equal total population, and i am with the 1% and 5% caveat i would also like to see equal voter registration as much as possible.
otherwise, and i thought about this a lot in the last 10 years. i need to think about other things. otherwise the vote for supervisor is not the same from district to district, and i recall 10 years ago as we left the districts that although the total population was roughly equal but within the 5% that the voter registration was wildly different. i think in practice for the last 10 years a vote for district supervisor in a single vote for supervisor in district 3 is like twice as important as a vote for supervisor in district 8 because the ratio of total population to voter registration is so different between district 3 and 8. as much as possible i would
encourage this task force to try to balance both total population and voter registration. i don't think those have to go in different directions. finally if i have time. the question of breaking up the census block. this came up at least twice 10 years ago. there was a lot of discussion about the 55 laguna project keeping it in district 8. it might have fallen in district 5. >> thank you for sharing your comments. next caller, please. >> hello, this is mark powell. just reiterate we need mapping tools now so that every day people can start mapping communities. all of the surrounding counties, santa clara, contra costa county
have mapping tools online. we need training available to the public to understand the mapping tools. the los angeles task force had a dozen meetings in september and three community map drawing workshops, one in spanish. i can't express enough we need this website as soon as possible to have the communities drawing maps. thank you for everything you are doing. >> next caller, please. >> i wanted to empathies this is important given the relative difference in growth in the city has occurred. where we have seen matt haney's district grow because of the
downtown location and the districts not very much at all. it is especially to move the boundaries in this direction. as we can see this is a process that happens every decade, very rarely. we should consider what direction the city is growing in. since we can see construction occurring only be in district 6, then maybe we should be further decreasing district 6 in the expectation it will grow as it is doing. as it intends to and plans to do rapidly in the near term. i think that might create a more equitable outcome over the long and average process. it further encourages political participation of those in the
newly constructed years. thank you for the interesting process and interesting conversation. >> thank you for sharing your comments. i am checking for further callers in the queue. do we have further callers. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> thank you. if there are no other callers on the line, at this time ms. clerk, are there any other final comments from any of the members? >> just a small amount of housekeeping. if you could close public comment. >> i am sorry. public comment is now closed. now, are there any other comments, further comments from members? do we have any hands raised?
>> i do not see any further name in the roster. >> very good. i won't take -- if i'm not mys taken this report does not call for a vote. >> that's correct, mr. chair. >> we can file it and move to the next item. >> it appears no objection to moving on. >> next item number 4, i think. >> that's correct. 4. discussion of the legal duties and obligations for redistricting task force. this is discussion. we will take public comment. members of the public call in the call in number 415-655-0001. meeting id24963086800. press pound twice to connect to the meeting and press star followed by 3 to indicate you
wish to speak. the system will tell you you have raise your hand. wait until you are unmuted to begin your comments. mr. chair, i note we have connected to the call andrew shin. [indiscernable] >> people, you are up. thank you. >> hello, task force members. i am going to try to share my screen. >> okay. i am going to go quickly. after hearing all of the information that is interest in the process i am here to tell you a process which is your
deadlines and schedules. task force needs to be done by april 15th this year. before april 15th. that is the deadline. the charter has that. there is no room for negotiation. that is where you need to be. as part of that and the process you are going to be getting a lot of public input and meetings which you discussed in the past. there is going to be a crunch ahead if more meetings are not scheduled. in the past you considered having meetings per district 11 or 22 additional meetings. that fits in with the past which is 25 to 40 meetings. i wanted to show you what the past groups have done to give you a sense where you are in
comparison. 2,000 task force had 13. they started in january. you can see they had a lot of meetings very quickly and multiple meetings in one day. morning and evening meeting. they had 18 total meetings in 15 days. there are a lot of meetings that could happen. there is going to be a crunch if those are not met. the census 2010 got started in august. they scheduled 30 meetings. you can see in january, february, march they were doing a lot of meeting scheduling in this time in october and september. you can see where in group is now in the schedule. it looking like we have 8, 9 meetings scheduled. the goals you described trying to reach out to the public for
input that is not going to work all that well. i want to remind you not only do they have to be on sfgovtv. there are different platforms. the flexibility is something to consider to schedule more meetings to accomplish the goal of getting this all done without having april and march meeting frequently. another thing to know is april 15 is the charter deadline. april 14 you have that in. past groups have done it. if you were to have 25 meetings that is one berweek schedule -- one per week scheduled. i am not trying to scare you. these are the deadlines. it is where we are. there is a lot of work to do.
as member cooper noted. there are past things to do. things to learn from. karin macdonald said start from scratch. there are lessons to take from previous entities. i hope you read the task force report. this is a description that is basic. it gives you time and energy to save from what they went through. they described progress and gave take aways. that is my part. here is andrew chin to add more information about the process. >> my portion of the presentation talks about legal requirements for redistricting. there is some overlap. i will be brief and hit the
highlights. here is the charter language that was quoted and we read to you a few minutes ago. the two issues to focus on specifically are population variations and communities of interest which we discussed a little bit. first of all, in terms of population variations. under the charter maximum variation is month no more than 5% or up to 5%. currently a lot of the districts are out of whack with that population maximum. six out of 11 districts are more than plus or -5% at the current time.
district 6 in particular. if you haven't had a chance to look at 2011-12 report. when they finished maps seven out of 11 also were up to the maximum of 5%. very fewer able to stay within the 1% which was the initial threshold. communities of interest. we talked about this. a few things about this as well. communities of interest is something very important for this task force. it is a data set. the data and criteria. this task force is responsible for collecting. public opinion put, meetings, feedback. this information is the purpose and focus of the task force
there. are different definitions of communities of interest. it is intended to be more flexible concept. it includes social and economic interests, it can include social networks, social gathering spaces. under state law it is generally not something that should be considered in light of political parties or candidates. one thing that i want to mention as well. the task force was helpful in pointing out this goes to thecomments about the history. there were other things mentioned as well as community's interest. geography, social or economic history, shared experience. community organizations. reference religious membership, income level or education.
likewise look at the 2011-12 task force report what are the district considerations. you can see the other things considered 10 years ago schools, community and rec centers, churches, golden gate park was a large part of the discussion, libraries. that is one housing type considered by the prior task force. i think there is a lot of flexibility around this concept. i encourage you all to be open to the public input. you bring it by your own knowledge of the communities. there is collecting of the information and data something this task force should keep in mind going forward. learning about the recognized neighborhoods. that is a place where the task force works with the public to
collect the necessary data to apply that criteria. we feel strongly about the neighborhoods to stop and start. i think you will see a lot of public comment about that as well. i think that is my last slide. i want to hit the highlights given that you have had a very thorough presentation. i will turn it over to my colleague to cover the legal duties and obligations of the task force as well. >> good afternoon, members of the task force. i am going to briefly cover your duties as they are described in the relevant laws and as they are described in the memo we shared with all of you. i hope everyone had a chance to review the memo. if you have questions please
reach out. your general responsibilities are to draw the supervisor districts from community input. just keep in mind that accessibility is important. we won't be able to draw districts if we don't have community input. when scheduling meetings keep that in mind. you have to complete the redrawing before april 15th. that means that you can't have a meeting on april 15th to approve it. it must be before april 15th. just a reminder if you miss three regular meetings without express approval at or before each missed meeting, it is deemed to have resigned 10 days after the third missed meeting. everyone be is doing great. no one is in that position yet. it is important to remind
ourselves of those relevant timelines. as a public body all of your meetings must be public. that means they must be open to the public. the public must have an opportunity to give input. your meeting dates as you all know must be published by a certain timeline. every meeting must have a quorum. this is going to be a consideration to your scheduling. like chair townsend mentioned. you want to try your best to be at every meeting. if you cannot make the meeting, consideration would be is there a quorum. if you can't be there, does that mean the eight other people can't meet without you? we want everyone at the meetings. we want to be mind full we are in a short timeframe. not everyone is able to make
every meeting. you might have a pre-scheduled commitment. life may come up and you can't make it to every meeting. keep that in mind you need at least five members at every meeting to make decisions that meet the legally requirements. the other things i want to stress. you may meet as many times as are necessary on any platform. before the meeting before the task force members were stressing they wanted to be on sfgovtv. due to the availability on sfgovtv, that may not be possible if you want to meet the prior task force's meeting scheduled 25-40 meetings in six months. keep that in mind.
we would welcome sfgovtv at every meeting being able to have it open to the public may not be able if you want as many meetings as prior task forces. the other thing that could be possible is we don't know when we are able to have in-person meetings. if you cannot have an in-person meeting but want to focus in a certain neighborhood. your meeting could be about that specific neighborhood or district. planning ahead of time and being conscious that because of the times we are living under right now what prior task forces did may not be possible or as soon as possible. keep that in mind as well. the other thing that i wanted to remind you is that you must hold at least one public meeting on a saturday, sunday or after 6:00 p.m. on a weekday. you have held a 6:00 p.m.
meeting. there are folks that work monday through friday. holding a meeting on friday or saturday or sunday is a consideration to take. behind full of communication with each other. if you are communicating with each other 100% is okay. if there are five in the communication that is a unlawful meeting. be aware. one, two, three, four is okay. be mindful. if there are three people communicating and then one person takes it to the other three, that is a meeting as well. behind full that the public needs to know everything about the task force at the public meeting that is notice with the appropriate timeline. i want to stress that it is really important that you get
community input. stressing that having as many people as possible is important. i want to briefly touch the public records act and sunshine ordinance. any record that you hold in possession that is related to the business of why we are here which is redistricting and the task force is available to the public. if we get a request for it, we have to go through and ask you and you will have to turn over anything you have. behind full. there is no exception for this is something embarrassing i said so it shouldn't be disclosed. be mindful of the documents you have in your possession are disposesible under the public records act and sunshine ordinance. i think that covers it all.
at this point andrew and i are open to questions. this is really brief. i just want to stress that we all three of us are here to talk to you at any point. reach out to us. i know that sometimes there is questions you don't want to ask in front of a public audience. we are here for you as a reminder. i open it to any questions you might have. >> thank you. >> i do not see any members with names in the roster at this moment. >> jeremy lee followed by cooper now are requesting to be recognized. >> jeremy lee, please. >> a couple questions. both directed.
you spoke about absences. is there an definition of absence? for example could i just show up to the meeting for five minutes then leaf. would that count as absence or greater than 50% or is it something we have to define in our own by-laws? >> thank you for the question. that is something to define in your by-laws. the purpose of this description that is available to allow you flexibility. for what you as task force consider important goals. >> i want to ask about the sunshine request. how broad or specific can they be? can someone just request that for all of member jeremy lee's
communications about redistricting, that broad? some kind of boundaries? >> no. as long as there are no -- member requests all of member jeremy lee's communications about redistricting we have to turn over. member lee's e-mails or anything you have unless there is an exception to it. very little exceptions under the sunshine ordinance. attorney-client privilege ledge related to the task force and the legal question or you want to know something and you are asking as legal adviser. we would assert attorney-client privilege. for the most part, a member of f the public e-mails you to ask
questions or ask for information, all of that is discoverable and you would have to turn that over. >> can potentially someone say can i get all of the entire task force's communications about task force related things? >> yes. >> thank you for clarifying that. >> mr. coupe. >> scheduling meetings. for the regular meetings in our meeting last time. special meetings can get called anchored nation around that. i am curious about the legal requirements in terms how meetings are scheduled and what has to be in the meeting and the agenda items that can be done
elsewhere? >> in terms of setting up meetings, under state law the task force is require to notice meetings at least five days in advance. general state law is three days. it is now five days for redistricting. that is more advanced planning. what needs to be on the agenda. there is no real requirement. if from were they would be in the bylaws or something like that. no requirement the meeting needs to be around specific matters. what ever we do we need sufficient notice to the public. what the topic is going to be. the public should have a sense
of what the task force is taking up. does that answer your question? >> my question is mostly focused on the scheduling meetings. when the chair calls the meeting to happen today, we made that happen. i am curious about in the future is it really just up to the chair and clerk to declare it or something to be discussed? regular or special meetings if you wanted to make more regular meetings you would have to discuss here or have it that way. >> under city law you are required to have a regular meeting date which you have taken care of in the bylaws. we had one set per month. given the meeting demands which will be reviewed. we are going to have a ton of
special meetings. regular and special have terms. providing five day notices and agendas are pretty much the same. special versus regular aren't too important. when we set the schedules for meetings, i think townsend and the vice chair would take the lead on that. at the end of the day we need five members to make it an official meeting. it is driven by your availability and your willingness to make accommodations in your schedules. >> thank you. >> through the chair. [indiscernable] >> please. >> andrew, what i was thinking
there is already a regular meeting schedule set. that doesn't have to remain with just those dates on that regular meeting schedule. i am of the mind with your if you think differently let me know. they could amend the regular meeting schedule to set other regular meetings in addition to what we have already got scheduledded without the special route. additionally scheduled special meetings as well. >> that would certainly be an option to schedule more regular meetings. just given the short lifespan of the task force. we are less than six months from when we need to be done with all of our work. it is inevitable we will have a lot of special meetings and not able to cover everything with a regular meetings.
regular and special will not matter. it will require flexibility by everyone. >> that covers the question. >> the only reason i thought amending the regular meeting so the public understands when the regular meetings are going to happen. in addition to all of the special meetings that need to be scheduled as well. >> thank you. are there any other members? >> there is, mr. chair. member gil. >> please, sir. >> thank you. i have a couple questions in regards to legal requirements memo. this question of vote dilution is interesting to me. i am thinking back to one of the
comment is by an member of the public. would we expect to reasonably a future vote dilution to be. in five years we understand there is a lot of development in my neighborhood south of market. could we take that into consideration as a reason why we would go to the 5% limit? >> yes, we need more analysis. if we have districts for the analysis. it is early to say we have any such districts and what steps to prevent vote dilution. we will return when we have a chance to crunch the numbers. my understanding is making that assessment. it is a snapshot in time to
speculating about the future. that would be difficult to do. certainly in terms to do so. it would be difficult to do that and be back with the sufficient amount of data. >> thank you. that is quite clear. would it be permissible for us to come up with clear criteria how we define a community of interest? over the next few weeks trying to come up with something that resembles a definition so we are not discussing what is and isn't a concern come march? >> that would be a very worthwhile discussion for the task force to have. it is probably going to be ongoing discussion and dialogue to get more public input where they recognize the neighbors to stop and start. i won't get an understanding
what communities of interest are in the mix. some data force the prior task force did make it important. the 2011-12 task force. if you want to do that now it would be very worthwhile discussion. >> the other thing to remember is that may be a clear definition may not be here yet, but through public input you will have these defined things the public is saying. i think that is why it is important your work is hand in hand. you are drawing a line with the public input line. maybe there are communities of interest you have not considered. this is what we want you to consider. keep that in mind.
>> in regards to duties and obligation memo. it talks about a page for redistricting to be in place after we come up with the district lines. is it safe to assume it is the seb sight already there -- the website already there or a completely website that is different. >> it is safe to assume the website we are developing now is the website that will live after the task force ends their work. future task forces will be able to go back like you have to get these documents and all of this work product they did to help them in their work, too. >> thank you. any other members.
>> yes vice chair reiner is in the queue. >> setting up meetings. we are concerned about getting this done since we started. i am trying to figure out the best way for the group. we have the meetings in the community, cord nation to make sure facilities are available. the meetings so that we have appropriate overview. is it appropriate for us to meet with the clerk and to take a look or who is the appropriate person to meet with and map out a number of meetings, whether it is in the neighborhoods, districts? how do we do that as soon as possible? >> is that on the agenda for the next meeting? setting meeting dates or am i
mistaken? >> we could on a future meeting we could as part of the discussion later in this agenda at future meeting agenda items discuss bringing agenda item like that forward at november 1st or a later meeting. i believe, also, the clerk may have further answering input to the question. at next meeting we will have title out reach plan to be delivered by the consultant conducting outreach. we will be happy to add an item on the meeting. with chair townsend's comments at the beginning of the meeting you need to work onsetting up
these meetings and scheduling them, we would be happy to help you in any way the task force felt comfortable with. the next item on the agenda will feed into exactly how are those meetings to be presented. we will give you more information in the next item. >> thank you. any other members? >> jeremy lee has his name in the roster. >> very brief clarifying question. on page 4 of the presentation it highlights our planned meetings for the rest of the year. my understanding or starting from december 2021 it highlights the first of the month every
month. it was my understanding we agreed on the first monday of every month. can that be fixed so members of the public don't get confused? >> yes that is an informational error. >> we will get it fixed. anyone else? >> no further names in the roster. i will request a copy of the corrected document from the city attorney and those that wish to see it, it will be on the rtf website. mr. chair, no further names in the roster. >> have we been to the public on this item yet. >> not yet. >> i am getting confused. please let's have public comment. >> we continue to work with the
department of technology for the public comment callers. >> before we do that, vice chair, could you take the meeting for just a minute? >> sure. >> thank you. i will return shortly. >> members of the public to comment on this discussion about the legal duties and obligations for redistricting task force call in the call in number 415-655-0001. today's id24963086800. following that you should press pound twice to connect to the meeting. press star followed by number 3
if you wish to raise your hand to speak for this item. wait until the system indicates you are unmuted to begin your comments. i understand that we have fall callers listening and four raised hands to communicate with the panel. could we be connected to the first caller, please. >> this is the league of women voters of san francisco. i wasn't sure when to bring this up. i will say it now. i do believe it is relevant to the communities of interest and the requirements and points raised. as the task force considers communities of interest, it would be valuable for the task force to have further training on the way census data treats
race and ethnicity. the pandemic and political interference in the census has, according to the person who focuses on the census. it has risk to people of color and race and ethnicity. the task force may want to learn be about racial groups and the limitation of those definitions of race and the date. the definition of white is interesting. some might say problematic. it includes middle east and arabs. some other race is interesting, multi-racial. it is worth learning about. how do spanish and latino interests go with other races.
these are really important things to understand. the data you will be using in redistricting and legally what can you stretch, not stretch? i mentioned before. mtr really explains race andthnistic well. also, the talk about the lawsuits that happened around these issues which are good for the task force to be aware of and be informed about. thank you for your work. this is a grate meeting that is being run very efficiently this time around. i appreciate that on friday. >> next caller, please. >> in response to the questions
surrounding public disclosure requirements and the sunshine ordinances. i encourage the members of the committee to examine one of our san francisco constituents that is using these regulations already. it is very interesting for doing so. it is on twitter as journo underline anon. search on twitter you can find him having the conversation with city officials that he may eventually have with your committee. he might be prepared or interested in the overall sunshine proceeding and educate you in the process. that is my comment. >> next caller, please.
>> hello. i want be the thank the members of this committee for doing this work. i am a resident of district 10. i work at the health center. it is busy here. i would like to see this committee engage high school students and college students, maybe offer a stipend to get the word out and help them. they should be involved, young people because the census impacts them the most. they are the future. what services we offer now in the next 10 years impacts them more than other people. i would like to see a way to engage the youth for internships or opportunity for all youth to come and work in the different
districts, get the word out and collect data. thank you. >> next caller, please. >> good afternoon. i am with the league of women voters of san francisco. thank you for sharing the previous task force meeting data. in getting an idea what to expect for the next 7 months before april. i would like to point out the current jurisdictions and schedule and waiting for a reference. the los angeles county redistricting commission they have at least up to this point 40 meetings. san diego county have at least
over 30 already passed. oakland their deadline is december 31. they have from now until december weekly meetings. looking at the other jurisdictions to see what is going on and how often they meet when they go toward their deadline. as we try to make a schedule to fit the task force members. thank you. >> next caller, please. >> david pill plow. if you could give me a 30 second warning, that is helpful. i was expressing census blocks and trying to finish about 55 laguna and u.c.s.f.
i am trying to bring up that map but it is huge. 55 laguna did end up staying in district 8 in the current plan, although it is not clear if that is staying in 8 or ends up in district 5 in your plan. u.c.s.f. parnassis medical center on the south side of the avenue has a number of buildings. that particular census block stretches to crestmont and christopher drive, part of precinct 77.02. i was troubled there was no way to connect that portion of medical center way with where the street to just take that portion of the csfparnasis
campus separate from the forest behind it to keep that in district 5. there are those challenges that i think are implicated with the questions about the census block limitations. i agree with the previous caller about district 6 as small as possible since it is most likely to grow as we saw in the last 10 years. i would have that be a minus 5 district if that is possible. finally, since there was reference to the 2011-12 task force as you all know i sat on that. i can take questions or even gauge in discussions offline or a future meeting what our task force did and all of that. i am happy to help and promote in as we go through this process. thanks again.
>> any further caller in the queue? >> no more callers in the queue. >> thank you very much. >> is public comment closed? >> public comment is closed. i want to thank the office of the city attorney representatives for their very thorough and interesting presentation and for being available for us at all times. now, i would like to turn the meeting back. chair townsend you are up. >> if you could unmute
mr. chair. >> we see you. we do not hear you. >> now we can hear and see you. welcome back, mr. chair. >> can you still. >> yes. >> all right. it says i am muted. as long as you can hear me we don't much care what it says. thank you, vice chair. let's move on. public comment is closed. i believe we can move to item 5. is that so, mr. clerk? >> we could, mr. chair. we see no further members of the task force that wish to comment on this item. it can be filed and we can move forward. >> thank you, sir. we can call item 5, mr. clerk.
>> yes, just a moment, please. >> 5. discussion of broadcasting and meeting platforms for future redistricting task force meetings. discussion and possible action item. task force will take public comment prior to action. members who wish to comment on this should call the call in number not changed. it is 415-655-0001. press the pound twice to connect and star followed by 3 if you wish to enter the queue to speak. please wait until the system indicates you are unmuted. i note we are joined today by clerk of the board angela and operations deputy director
within the board. >> thank you, mr. carroll. madam clerk, the floor is yours. >> thank you. through the chair to the members of the task force. angela, clerk of the board. you have heard it mentioned that you may want to consider a different platform that might best suit the work of this body. there may be uncertainty as to when in-person meetings may begin. please rest assured our whole team is working as though they will be starting immediately, but we will talk about that next week. this item explores alternative platform that may work for your purposes in the event remote meetings are the only way or the majority of the way this body is able to conduct its work and
provides ability to host interpreters to work on different channels with communities of interest. without anything further i would like to have wilson, operations deputy, provide an overview of this system and we can bring more information to you in addition to the meeting schedule, how we are providing services for the outreach meetings in the community in person, and in addition to the outreach plan itself. thank you. mr. ang. >> deputy director of operations. i have a short presentation today. i have our it administrator to give credit for. he will be my copilot to assist with technical questions.
what i want to talk about is casting and platforms of future remote meetings. start with the next slide. i want to start off with the presentation with just a couple definitions we will use not only today but as well as for future meetings. if you see any terminology used we want to make sure that we are absolutely clear in what we mean. the city currently does not do over the air broadcasting. when we talk about broadcasting it is used with cablecasting. sfgovtv provides cablecasting depending on the provider. sfgovtv also streams online on sfgovtv.org via web which has two channels 1 and 2. lastly, the topic we are going to talk about today is primarily web extreming.
online streaming to all web ex participants including members, staff, members of the public as well. we will be setting aside the sfgovtv discussion for today. it was discussed in the last presentation. cablecasting and streams is only available on the first and fourth mondays and fridays. sfgovtv is not a requirement for the task force to hold hearings. they should schedule in the interest of having sufficient meetings and public input by the april deadline. on the next slide i will talk about remote meeting capabilities. web ex. the focus of the presentation is for the clerk of the board to to recommend web ex going forward. you are currently using the
platform for meeting with public callers calling via web ex. the teams and platforms are connected through the bridge. the advantage of moving task force to the web ex platform. now all meeting participants would be on one platform which members, staff, including interpreters or any department personnel and members of the public will be fully on the web sex platform. i will talk more what that entails for members of the public and the added benefit to that. there will be on our end for the clerk of board less staffing resources and more efficient troubleshooting. we are not monitoring different systems as well. if members of the public are
able to participate in web ex via client this offers the streaming capability for all web ex participants which i will talk about in more detail on the next slide. functionality of web ex. members and staff have audio and video capability. the id staff will provide documentation and testing and scripting around that if we choose to move in that direction. the added benefits of public participation. currently they have the ability to provide public comment via phone audio. if we move all members to the same platform. members of the public will join via web ex client to make public comment be via audio as well.
public will have the capability of watching live by signing in as participant to observe the proceedings at any point in time. the moderation of the web ex platform will be conducted by the clerk of the board or sfgovtv staff depending on the scheduling and availability of our staff resources. as far as timeline. upon the directive, we are ready to work with it staff to conduct testing. we can potentially migrate platforms as early as november 1st. implementation will be contingent on testing by the staff and we will update the instructions and documentation and scripting for the chair and members and the public and to ensure that we update all public
instructions as well. on the last and final slides, i want to present the determination that we would like the task force to make. we would like to determine if the task force intends to transition to the web ex system and provide opportunity for members of the public to watch and observe via web extreming. that is what we would like to present to you. operational, legislative, technical or otherwise. >> thank you. any member questions? >> i see member pierce and cooper are in the roster. >> please. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you for the presentation. i am researching places that
have web ex. the streaming capabilities within their facilities like conferencing setups in facilities. apology madam clerk and mr. carroll for the delay. my understanding or request for point of clarification. instead of the current system we would exclusively be running all meetings through web ex and the streaming. no more having people calling in but we would incorporate the entire process on to the web ex system. is that what we are requesting? >> yes, for the bulk of what you are working on that would be the case. there is an adjunct of adrian
pawn to teach us. it would utilize teams and different channels on teams to host interpreters to assist with interpretation. that part of it would be connected somehow. i cannot describeetto you any more than that. we are learning. we will learn how to do that. adrian is committed to teaching us how to use that for that purpose. >> a channel for teams? >> for the interpretation. since we use web ex, there is closed caption interpretation on web ex over 300 languages. it would pick that up in the event we don't have interpreters. >> thank you very much. >> thank you.
>> member cooper followed by member gil. >> start right in. >> thank you, madam clerk. great presentation. i am happy to see this. we don't have to use sfgovtv. it is clear what we could use. this is good. i am curious to know if there is a learning curve. i work in a teams office. comfortable with teams. what the curve is like and opportunities for trainings. i know we can't do all of that together. perhaps one-on-one or three on one trainings. >> to the chair, my staff currently throughout the pandemic have trained various individuals and groups to use the team system. of course, we would do the same for web ex and teams. we will continue to help train
individuals on anything else. once we learn to use the system we will be happy to help with that as well. >> thank you for that question because it is all rocket surgery to me. mr. gil, you are up next. >> thank you, chair. i guess my first comment is for me. i work in a zoom business. for me it doesn't matter whether it is teams or web ex. i have to learn a new system anyway. that does bring up the question that it appears to me that many community groups in san francisco are doing zoom. it seems like zoom is not an alternative here, only web ex or teams? >> through the chair. my understanding through the department of technology is that
teams and web ex now particularly web ex is preferred. it is the system vetted for security. no bombing occurring. my staff can probably articulate the more technical nature behind that. i think that is the gist of it. correct me if i am wrong, mr. deputy. >> madam clerk, you are correct. web ex and teams are the leading software by the department of technology. >> thank you for the clarification. definitely for me. either one of them seems to work. i would prefer we choose one right now or as soon as possible and stick to it so we can start letting people know in the community that is the platform we will be using. once we start doing in-person meetings i hope we can start
doing it soon so followings know how to do that, hopefully. >> mr. chair i see jeremy lee has his name in the roster. flores has a name in the roster to address the topic at hand. >> if you don't make a decision today about using one specific platform my suggestion is to go on any of the city's multiple commission websites and actually look at what meeting on web ex looks like. i know off the top of my head, too, which i staff ethics uses web ex. you can open a past meeting to see what it means to be on web
ex. i will say it is very similar to zoom. usability i think is easier. i have found it easier to use than isp. >> thank you. jeremy lee. >> madam clerk. i am very clear with the task force and members of the public. the issue before us is asking us to migrate over from teams to web ex, is that correct? >> that is correct. we would like to use the channels on teams for the interpretation part of it. we have teams, you have been using it. we want to bring in a new platform to give you a quick training on in a short amount of time. then learn ourselves how to use the channels. how to host the interpretation. adrian has indicated she could
provide interpreters for the november 1st meeting if we could get it. all of your usage up to speed. >> the main reason for the switch is security and just kind of the issues. >> no the main reason for the switch to web ex. it has more function ability for the public to see the meeting in realtime without having to rely on streaming or sfgovtv and to be able to see the maps you are discussing and talking about. >> that ass my question. thank you so much. >> i don't see any further names in the roster. >> i believe we can proceed to public comment.
>> that's correct. thank you, mr. chair. members who wish to comment on this discussion of broadcasting and meeting platforms for future meetings call the public comment number. 415-655-0001. id24963086800. pound twice and then star followed by 3 to enter the queue to speak. it will indicate you have raise your hand. wait until you are unmuted to provide comments. we have one caller in the queue. please hear from the next caller. >> mr. carroll. >> i would like to clarify that there is no -- the task force is not going to make a motion for anything at this point. we would need to make a motion before we move to public
comment. >> i see member cooper has her name in the roster. >> a motion. i will move to use web ex as the platform starting at the november 1st meeting. >> second. >> member pierce has her name in the roster. >> member lee did my job for me. i was going to second. >> member lee has done the second. let me make sure my notes are
up-to-date. >> before the vote we need to move to public comment, don't we? >> yes and we had a caller in the queue. i will go through the routine one more time to make sure we are reaching everyone. members who wish to comment on this discussion of broadcasting and meeting platform for future meetings call 415-655-0001. enter id24963086800. pound twice to connect to the meeting and star followed by 3 to speak. prompts will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until you are unmuted to comment. i see we have the previous caller back. please connect to that caller.
>> david pill plow. i have no objection to web ex. i have used it many times for various city bodies that have met using that. i may have other thoughts about particulars on the conduct of tele conference meetings that will discuss with the fact. for example, web ex shouldn't require an actual e-mail address as condition to participate. i think all of the presentations made to the task force should have the pages numbered. some youtube presentation was the presentation today wasn't. that should be consistent. we need slightly better instructions on the agendas how to participate and what the public expectation should be about participation in meeting
whether they are participating by phone or by computer on the platform. those are my thoughts there. finally, you may want to create a section on the website under resources for maps. ultimately we are going to talk about a lot of different maps. i would start with the current city-wide precinct map the department of elections has. it is detailed and that would be another thing to start with. those are my thoughts. >> to the public, we are taking item comment on the item we just discussed and that item only. for other comments please reserve them for general public comment or when the particular item comes up. we have had people commenting on
other things. they are not pertinent to the item on the agenda item we are discussing right now. thank you. mr. carroll, go ahead. >> no further callers. we have reached the end of the queue, mr. chair. >> thank you. now back to the meeting. public comment is closed. with we ready to -- we have a motion on the floor if i am not mys taken. we should proceed with the vote on the motion. if you could restate the motion, please. >> the motion was offered by member cooper. i would like to request you to please restate your motion. >> the motion was for the
redistricting task force to use the web ex platform beginning with the november 1st meeting. >> that was seconded by nebraska lee. memberly that we move to the web ex platform for future redistricting platform meetings beginning november 1st at 6:00 on monday, november 12th. vice chair reinier. absent. member lee. >> aye. >> member gil. >> aye. >> member pierce. >> aye. >> member cass tilllon.
>> aye. >> member ho. >> aye. >> member cooper. >> aye. >> member lee. >> aye. >> town send. >> aye. >> mr. chair, there is no objection. i am noting the absence of vice chair reinier. >> agenda item therefore is -- the motion is adopted. agenda item 6 is next. mr. carroll. >> i just want to note for the record that we don't see any further discussion in the queue. if you would like to file this discussion before we move on. >> please. again take 6 translation of redistricting task force documents into multiple languages. this is discussion item and we will take public comment.
members who wish to comment on this call the number. 415-655-0001. id24963086800. pound twice to connect to the meeting and star followed by 3 to enter the queue to speak. the system prompts will indicate you raised your hand. wait until you are unmuted to comment. i understand that we are joined today by the director of the department of elections. he is here to address the panel. >> thank you. good afternoon. i understand you have questions on the translation documents in relation to the task force. some background on what we are doing so far. the department translates the documents into chinese, filipino and spanish. we have been doing the minutes, the agendas and the notices.
then the larger file like the bylaws we send to a translating vendor we use for election materials. that is the approach we will take as we go forward. as far as the timing when we can turnaround the translation. it comes down to the size of the file or contents that we are to translate. bigger items put out to a vendor. really as much as possible if we can create templates like the agenda. then we maintain similar language meeting to meeting that quickens the timeframe for us to get the translation completed and posted. that is our approach. the materials the task force generates and the materials the
center next week they generate we will translate as well. we will post on the website. in as much as often as you meet that is the process we will undertake. i can take any questions you have on translations. >> member hernandez gil. >> thank you, director. that was very helpful. it clarified one of the questions that i had regarding this issue. the reason i did bring it up at the last meeting due to the fact that i was seeing inconsistent terminology and contradictory terminology around the process. if you are using an outside vendor for certain documents and internal translators for others,
i am guessing that is where that inconsistency is happening. i would ask to establish a gloss arrefor the languages. when you send it out to external firm or translator the terms are consistent. we don't end up with situations where folks are reading to buy laws or the minutes or agenda and seeing different terminology. more specifically around the redistricting process. the name of the redistricting task force had names and documents. what i found very helpful is the fact that the stated of california already publishes templates in multiple languages around their redistricting process. it might be helpful to look up what the california process is
and use the same terminology. emphasizing the usefulness of a gloss rein multiple languages that is use full for the outreach folks to have. it is going to make life easier for translators and interpreters without googling redistricting, what is a precinct, that sort of thing. >> great idea as we go forward. i don't want to put the job of proof reader on you. if you see any words or phrases that require attention send me an e-mail so we attend to it. >> i will endeavor to do that and would be more than happy to. >> i see member jeremy lee in
the roster. >> i wanted to echo the comment on establishing a gloss ary. i work with the chinese community in the day job. i have come across flyers and documents, not necessarily from the city but translated for the chinese community that may being no sense. they translated terms like lowell. they will not know chinese characters used to mimic pronunciation. it is a vital that a gloss reis established so that when they
are contracted out they know what terms to use. >> thank you. >> is there someone else? >> no further name anythings the roster -- names in the roster. >> can we move to public comment. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> members of the public to comment on this discussion regarding the translation of the task force documents to multiple languages. call 415-655-0001. id24963086800. pound twice to connect to the meeting. star followed by 3 to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until you are unmuted to begin your comments. i see two listeners and one hand raised to provide comments to the task force.
>> chairman: i believe it can be filed at this time. >> clerk: i will file this discussion. >> thank you. >> chairman: thank you so much. thank you again. good to see you, mr. arntz. >> take care. >> chairman: next item. >> clerk: agenda item number seven is general public comment. members of the public may address the redistricting task force on members within their jurisdiction and not on today's agenda. we have two callers on the line and if any of those callers wish to provide general public comment they should stand up, raise their hand followed z by
star three. yes, mr. chair? >> chairman: before we proceed, the items should be within the redistricting task force jurisdiction and how and why the giants lost their last game to the dodgers is not within our jurisdiction, but it should be. having said that, proceed. >> clerk: we'll watch out for those comments, mr. chair. the public comment call-in number is (415) 655-0001. the meeting id for today's meeting is 24963086800. after you have entered the meeting idea pile the star symbol followed by three. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. you may then begin your comments and task force members, i see that we are three callers who are listening
and all three of those callers have their hands raised to provide general public comment. can we have the first caller, please. >> chairman: thank you. >> caller: hi. thank you very much for listening and really appreciate all the great information. i think two things come to mind for me as if we are thinking about moving the tenderloin into a different district, there's a lot of community members, a lot of residents, a lot of businesses that would love to chime in as i would love to see the group reach out to some of our organizations to try to organize some conversations. the second thing is i heard that i just want to make sure the task force is willing to kind of think that all the way through. so until tbd has done a lot in organizing groups.
on top of that. there's a merchant's association. there's a lot of districts or zones with other work that's happening. the police station would be affected. and so i just want to make sure that we try to keep it as a whole. if there is a redistrict move, again, try to reach out to the community so we can all be apart of it. thank you all for your time. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hi. this is lauren girardin with the voters san francisco again. thank you for all of your work today. i'm so excited that what time it is, i can't even tell you. i just want to add on one more thing. i want to share with the task force to not neglect other accessibility. as the legal voters of san francisco and other organizations detailed in our letter dated september 16th,
2021, information and graphics and flyers should be offered in plain text. also called machine readable. this accessibility shows the size of both materials shared by the task force, the materials shared with the task force by other city agencies and consultants working with the task force. i did note that a number of citizens share on the task force and social media and other agencies do not alt text. it's a short description that are unable to see the image. and often times the language translation about meetings is actually only provided in these images so it's extra important to have alt text there for people who can't see the pictures. and similarly, pdfs should have readable texts and the images
should also be described in alt text. the league wants to thank clerk carroll for quickly editing the text z. we'll keep an eye out for more things so we can suggest for quick improvements, but we also encourage task force members to look for this as well because it doesn't matter if we translate materials into other languages if people can't see those images or those pdfs and can't read the materials or have the screen readers read it to them. happy friday. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hi. good afternoon. [inaudible] this is really a comment to the earlier comment who mentioned about how they use outreach and
i just e-mailed the task force for something happening this october 21st at 3:00 p.m. and it's hosted by common cause and it's open to high school students and college students and i'm hoping that maybe i think the way and there's some way possibly facebook page or twitter. but, if not, i will do my best. it's mobilized.u.s. slash. now i'm going to spell it out. mobilized.us. so for anyone who's interested in having these outreach, getting involved around
redistricting of great events thank you. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hi, this is summer with san francisco rising. i apologize if someone just touched on this. there's a bit of a delay with the sfgov tv streaming, so i missed a chunk of general public comment, but i wanted to echo what someone said earlier in the meeting, just about the importance of having a usable accessing mapping tool available to the public and also training to empower people with the knowledge to use those tools. you know, while we have until april, we really want ample time to actually mobilize and recruit people to come to these trainings and learn how to start mapping their own communities and that definitely takes time so please do consider locking down a user-friendly mapping tool to be available to the public as soon as you can and also some
dates for training that we can share with community members. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: can you hear me now? >> clerk: please again. >> >> caller: great. david pillpell. sorry about my earlier comments about maps, i was trying to relate that to the agenda item. i agree with the concerns that were expressed now just about language and accessibility where that absolutely makes sense here. please, again, bear in mind that not everyone can juggle the challenging technical issues here. i do a lot of these meetings and so i'm pretty able to do this, but i'm presuming that at some point in the very near future, we're going to have a lot of people joining this from various neighborhoods and communities that have not been
participating in city meetings on any platform on a regular basis and, some english speaking and some in other languages. i think it's very important that we slow down on occasion. take the time to explain the steps carefully in english where appropriate so that everyone can participate. this is very difficult both technically on redistricting it's also difficult doing this from home not in a room with people but in a virtual room and so thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i've received a word from the department of technology that we have no further callers in the queue.
that's right. no further callers in the queue, mr. chair. >> chairman: public comment is closed. are there any members who want to add further comment? >> clerk: mr. chair, i do not see anyone has entered their name into the roster to continue discussion on this agenda item. >> chairman: i believe that closes public comment. public comment is closed and that moves us now to the next item if i'm not mistaken. >> clerk: that's correct, mr. chair. hang on just one moment. look through my notes. agenda item number eight is discussion of future agenda items. this is a discussion and possible action item and we will be taking public comment prior to action. members of the public who wish to it provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 24963086800. press the pound symbol twice to
connect to the meeting and star three to be entered into the queue to speak. and the system prompt that informs you your line has been unmuted and you will begin your opportunity to begin your comments, mr. chair. i do not see any names in the roster to discuss future agenda items. now there is. member, jeremy lee. >> chairman: very good, mr. jeremy lee. >> thank you, chair. i want to talk about a -- something that the league of women voters brought up in one of their comments. just seeing if we could potentially have just kind of a report, a rundown of race and ethnicity, their legal definitions and implications in this process especially at racial groups. the limitations of using racial groups especially kind of these umbrella terms like hispanic,
latinx, asian, white, and just what those entail. so just want to see how other members feel about that and if that would be possible from the city attorney's office. >> chairman: is there any other member comments. >> clerk: i'm not seeing any members. >> there were three items that we did talk about today that we'd like to add to your agenda with your permission. >> chairman: please. >> the first one is the outreach by civic edge presentation to you on what they're bringing to this body and to the public. the second item is a run down
on where we're at. we do want to thank member pierce and we are vetting them actively and then the third item is to talk about meeting dates and when our schedule would allow us to host all of the dates that could be available between now and april. we're going to put them all on a calendar for you so you can see where you're currently booked and what then else is available to utilize the new system. >> chairman: thank you. all of the items are important. the last one especially because we need to get our schedule together. we just don't have a lot of time. thank you and to -- i don't think there's any problem with adding those items to the agenda. i don't suspect and to mr. jeremy lee's item, i think
perhaps we could get the outreach consultants to come in and talk about what they're doing around race and making sure that various ethnicities are aware of what we're doing and how that's looked at. for example, in our beginning first item that we discussed with the state, with the city attorney's office and with the consultants where they talk about rape, what do they mean. we know what it means to us. what does it mean technically within the jargain. so perhaps we ought to entertain that discussion. i'm just not sure where we go to lead us in that discussion unless the city attorney's office. >> mr. chair, i will add, i
received the note that office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs have already begun a style guide on words that director pawns and her interpreters to use. so we can with her permission send that out to all of the members so that you have that in advance and contemplate the next words that you can shoot off off the top of your head that we can build on what she's already built. >> chairman: thank you. i look forward to that. is there anyone else who has a comment on future agenda items? >> clerk: mr. chair, i'm not seeing any further names in the roster. >> chairman: is there any public comment. >> clerk: we'll check this last time on our agenda for members of the public. public comment callers should
call (415) 655-0001. enter the meeting id of 24963083 -- i'm sorry. i made a mistake and i want to repeat the entire meeting id. 24963086800 is the correct meeting id. press the pound symbol twice to connect to the meeting and then press the star key and number three to enter the system to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may then begin your comments. we still have three listeners. i'm not seeing yet any callers have raised their hands to provide public comment, but we're going to give them a moment. and now we have a caller. can you please connect us to our first caller. >> caller: hi. this is lauren girardin again
from legal womens voters san francisco. i just wanted to say thank you to member lee to adjusting the agenda item to learn more about race and ethnicity and especially how it's treated in the census data and any legal things that the task force might need to know. the league will do some plucking with some folks we know and see if there's anyone we can suggest to provide information or answer questions and i think he too will also be able to be very helpful in this conversation. so we will followup by e-mail with the task force about that. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments. delaying for just a moment to receive updated information from the department of technology. and i am seeing now we have no further callers to provide public comment on future agenda items. >> chairman: public comment on
future agenda items is closed. at this point, any other members? i think we can move on, please. >> clerk: that's right, mr. chair. i do not see any further discussion is requested from the members of the task force in the roster. >> chairman: and then we can file this discussion and with the future agenda items so suggested. i think we can move to the final item, nine. >> clerk: that's correct, mr. chair. >> chairman: that is adjournment. members, let me congratulate you, there is still daylight outside as we finish up on our meeting. congratulations once again. and we can consider ourselves adjourned at this point. we will see you on november 1st if not before.