← All documents

update to the town council

Other January 16, 2020 · 25 page(s)

View original PDF ↗ Meeting

Full extracted text

The document's complete text, exactly as extracted — not a summary. Use “Summarize this document” above for the short version.

Council of
5 Advisory
Committee
Overview
Respectfully Presented at the Town Council Meeting
January 16, 2020

Council Of Five Advisory Committee
• All meetings must conform to the Maryland Open Meetings Act and
provide the opportunity for public comment
Acknowledgement of • Work with and include the town attorney in your meetings
Guidelines
• Take into account the cause/affect of any recommendations that would
require additional charter changes and their affect on each other
• Look into other jurisdictions that have made this transition for advice
• A budget of $5000 is provided for attorney time, administrative expenses,
Budget Update
and professional services. Nothing significant to report
• Providing council update as directed 1/16/20
• Election of Eric Johnson Jr. as chair and Joe Saboury as vice chair
• Intend to deliver up to (5) options for the council on the findings of the
Deliverable Update
committee and our recommendations for moving forward
• Some, but not all of these recommendations may include districting
options
2

Council Of Five Advisory Committee
Length of Terms:
• There is a general consensus that the three year term is
adequate, however if there was a change the new terms
Election Cycle and Term would not exceed 4 years
Considerations
Election Cycles:
• Evaluating options for folding in the (2) new seats
• No changes to current term for seated elected officials
• Considering a cycle that provides an off year such as a 2/3/0
scenario to relieve the burden on town staff and voters
• Considering a cycle that provides for there never to be a year
where the majority of the council was up for election 2/2/1
• Recommend the continuation of the policy that if there is
only one candidate registered to run for a vacant seat upon
the registration deadline that no election is held for that
position and the candidate is awarded the position
• Recommend that the council itself should determine the
positions within the council vs. a committee recommendation
3

Council Of Five Advisory Committee
Now vs. Later
• The move to 5 council members will require amending the
Districting Considerations town charter. Now is an opportune time to consider
districting as we can eliminate the need to and expense
involved in change the charter a second time if districting is
found to be a viable and necessary endeavor
Considerations
• MML and Other Data shows mixed results / reasoning
• Any recommendation would adhere to legal precedent and
after consultation with the town attorney
We respectfully request direction from the town council on whether or not to
continue exploring districting under the committees current direction from the
council
4

In any scenario it is the recommendation
Council Of Five Advisory Committee
of this committee that a great deal of
effort is spent on communications and
marketing to keep the citizens informed
Advisory Charter
Committee Amendments Candidates
Presents / Public File For Absentee Ballot
Recommendati Hearings (APR Election (AUG Request Deadline
ons (FEB 20) 2) 3) (SEP 28)
Town Council Charter Public Notice of Election Day
Reviews / Amendments Candidates for (OCT 5)
Decides on Completed Election (SEP 21)
Transition Plan (APR-JUL)
(MAR 5 & 19)
Approx. 8 Months From Council Decision On Recommendation to Election
We strongly encourage citizen participation in this effort and invite all to participate
in our committee meetings as scheduled and posted on the town website.
5

Backup Slides (committee working slides)
6

Overview
I. Status of Council-Directed Deliverables
II. Review of MML Data on Districting
III. Lessons Learned from Other Municipalities
IV. Historical Data – Election Candidates
V. Marketing Considerations/Soft Education for Citizens
VI. Foundational Principles of Districting
VII.Districting Scenarios Based on Census Data
VIII.Conclusions and Recommendations
7

I. Status of Council-Directed Deliverables
Charge Item Status
A. All meetings shall conform to the Maryland Open In progress; two open meetings advertised and
Meetings Act and provide the opportunity held:
for public comment • Thurs, Dec 19 @ 6:30 pm
• Tues, Jan 7 @ 6:30 pm
B. Work with Town Attorney Sharon VanEmburgh Council of 5 Advisory Committee continues to
and include her in your meetings work with Ms. VanEmburgh; we have
reviewed/incorporated her memos of:
• Thurs, Nov 5, 2019 to Town Council
• Fri, Jan 3, 2020 to Advisory Committee
C. Please take into account the cause and effect of Ongoing and in consultation with Ms. VanEmburgh
any recommendations which would require
additional charter changes and their effect on each
other
D. A budget of $5,000 is available which can include Nothing significant to report
attorney time, administrative expenses, and
professional services
8

I. Status of Council-Directed Deliverables
Charge Item Status
E. Look into other jurisdictions that have made this Reviewed data from Ms. VanEmburgh:
transition for advice • June 1991 MML Memo
• Dec 2019 MML Data
F. Provide at least 5 separate ideas of how to make In progress
the transition
G. At the first meeting, a chair will be elected to run Completed; Eric Johnson elected Chair and Joseph
the meetings and a meeting timeline will Saboury elected Vice Chair; group agreed to meet
be established as needed to complete the deliverables; meetings
will be:
• Thurs, Dec 19 @ 6:30 pm
• Tues, Jan 7 @ 6:30 pm
• Wed, Jan 22 @ 6:30 pm
• Wed, Feb 5 @ 6:30 pm
H. A progress update to the Town Council is Completed by virtue of these slides; Advisory
requested at their January 16, 2020 meeting which Committee will continue to provide intermittent
will include a timeline for measurables and an updates on the group’s progress
9
estimated completion date

II. Review of MML Data on Districting
A. June 1991 MML Memo:
• 31 (or 20%) of 154 incorporated cities/towns elect by wards/districts
• Of these 31 with districts:
• 5 (or 17%) had at-large candidates
• 9 (or 30%) have an elected mayor with full voting rights
• 3 (or 10%) permit mayoral voting under special circumstances
B. Dec 2019 MML Data of 159 Maryland Municipalities:
• Election Cycles:
• 92 (or 58%) host elections ODD or EVEN years
• 62 (or 29%) host YEARLY elections
• 5 (or 3%) host elections every THREE or FOUR years
• Terms
• 107 (or 67%) have staggered terms
• 72 (or 45%) have 4-yr terms; 18 (or 11%) have 3-yr terms; & 63 (or 40%) have 2-yr terms
10

III. Lessons Learned from Other Municipalities
A. Impact of turf battles in districts (Arroyo Grande)
B. Overwhelming reasons to do districts; only a few not (Colton)
C. Intermittent requirement to redistrict; limit city’s ability to recruit best elected
officials; creation of fiefdoms (Corning)
D. In large cities districting a necessity, but not for smaller ones; reduce campaign
expenses of candidates; increase opportunities to minorities (Downey)
E. Elected from districts maintains a stronger sense of common good (Fremont)
F. No pros to districting, only cons (Fullerton)
G. Poor minority representation impetus for districts (Glenora)
H. 2 at-large members = statesmen (best interests of whole community); 4 district reps
thought first about own districts and need for deal making (ICMA)
I. Concern of losing whole city focus and generating more deal making (Pacifica)
Summary: Mixed recommendations for/against districting
11

IV. Historical Data – Residency of Election Candidates
Summary: Council members run from
geographical locations across Centreville
12

IV. Historical Data – Number of Candidates
Summary: Out of the 11 last elections:
• 4 had one candidate (no election)
• 5 had two candidates
• 2 had three or more candidates
13

V. Marketing Considerations/Soft Education for Citizens
A. In Progress: Formal/Recurring Email Alerts from Town on
Mtgs
• Town of Centreville Update - December 20, 2019
B. Recommendation: Town Web Page tab/link with Advisory
Committee Agendas/Minutes
C. In Progress: Social Media Platforms – Unofficial
D. Exploring options for Non-attendees to Submit Questions and
Feedback (use Town Clerk’s email address as point of contact;
Ms. Brinkley will then forward on to Advisory Committee
members)
14

VI. Foundational Principles of Districting
A. 1960s – U.S. Supreme Court decisions: “Population equality” – “1
person, 1 vote”
• Courts will accept variations in population between districts
• District size above or below the average size is its variation
• Total deviation of <10% is generally accepted
B. Redistricting Decision Factors:
• Districts should be compact (with regular boundaries)
• Districts should be contiguous (not separated into 2 or more separate areas)
• Boundaries should follow major geographical or neighborhood boundaries
• And should group together neighborhoods/communities with shared
interests/concerns
• Districts should be based on the overall population – not simply adult/voting
population
• Redistricting should not result in 2 incumbents in the same district
15

VI. Foundational Principles of Districting
C. The Role of Race – the 1965 Voting Rights Act:
“a. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice or
procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a
manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the
United States to vote on account of race or color . . . .
b. . . . [N]othing in this section established a right to have members of a protected
class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”
• Courts recognize as valid/legitimate goals:
• Compactness, contiguity
• following major geographical/neighborhood boundaries
• Grouping communities with shared interests and concerns
• “Racial gerrymandering” is prohibited (any effort to include or exclude
persons on racial lines regardless of intent)
16

VII. Timelines
Summary: From point of Town Council
making decision(s) on Advisory
Council of 5 Advisory
Committee Recommendations to
Committee Determines
Recommendations for Town Elections = ~8 months
Council (Dec 19-Feb 19)
Council Decision and Associated Charter Amendments
Town Council Town Council Charter Charter
Receives Review/Decisions Amendments Amendments
Recommendations on Transition Plan Initiated/Public Completed
(Feb 20 Mtg) (Mar 5 & 19) Hearings (Apr 2) (Apr-Jul)
Resulting Election
Candidates File Public Notice of Absentee Ballot
Election Day
Certificate of Candidates for Request Deadline
(Oct 5)
Nomination (Aug 3) Election (Sept 21) (Sept 28)
Note: Public Hearings Require 21 Days Notice
17

VIII. Districting Scenarios
Based on Census Data
18

VIII. Districting Scenarios Based on Census Data (Cont)
4-DISTRICT SCENARIO
A. Assumptions:
1. 4 Total Districts; 1 Candidate from Each; 1 At-Large
2. 2010 Population Total of 4,285
3. 4,285 divided by 4 = 1,071.25
B. Potential Scenarios:
Scen 1 Dist 1 Dist 2 Dist 3 Dist 4
A. Scenario 1 - North/South @304 Population 1126 1032 1131 996
Differential 5% -4% 6% -7%
Scen 2 Dist 1 Dist 2 Dist 3 Dist 4
B. Scenario 2 - East/West @Commerce
Population 1126 1140 1023 996
Differential 5% 6% -5% -7%
19

VIII. Districting Scenarios Based on Census Data (Cont)
4-DISTRICT SCENARIO
Scenario 1 - North/South @304 Scenario 2 - East/West
@Commerce
20

VIII. Districting Scenarios Based on Census Data
3-DISTRICT SCENARIO
A. Assumptions:
1. 3 Total Districts; 1 Candidate from Each; 2 At-Large
2. 2010 Population Total of 4,285
3. 4,285 divided by 3 = 1,428.33
B. Potential Scenario:
Scen 3 Dist 1 Dist 2 Dist 3
A. Scenario 3 - North/South @304 Population
Differential
21

VIII. Districting Scenarios Based on Census Data (Cont)
3-DISTRICT SCENARIO
Scenario 3
22

VIII. Districting Scenarios Based on Census Data (Cont)
2-DISTRICT SCENARIO
A. Assumptions:
1. 2 Total Districts; 2 Candidates from Each; 1 At-Large
2. 2010 Population Total of 4,285
3. 4,285 divided by 2 = 2,142.50
B. Potential Scenarios:
A. Scenario 4 - North/South @304 Scen 4 Dist 1 Dist 2
Population
Differential
B. Scenario 5 - East/West @ Commerce; Scen 5 Dist 1 Dist 2
and North/South at Kidwell Avenue Population
Differential
23

VIII. Districting Scenarios Based on Census Data (Cont)
2-DISTRICT SCENARIO
Scenario 4 - North/South @304
Scenario 5 - East/West
@ Commerce; and
North/South at Kidwell
24

IX. Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Conclusions:
1. Districting: Data from MML/other states mixed on for versus against
2. Terms: If terms were increased, no more then 4 years
3. Staggering: Majority of MD candidate elections under staggered terms
2. Recommendations:
1. Marketing Efforts: Town Web Page tab/link with Advisory Committee
Agendas/Minutes
2. Mayor and Other Council Positions: Town Council of 5 should decide; remove from
Advisory Committee discussion
3. Districting: Town Council provide direction to Advisory Committee on whether or
not to continue discussions on districting
4. 2 seat/2 candidate elections: Run similar to 1 seat/1 candidate scenarios (no
election in such cases)
5. Election Cycles: Advisory Committee should explore 2 scenarios:
a) No election year where a majority of the council could be “dumped” (i.e., 2-2-1)
b) Scenarios where there could be years in which there were no elections (i.e., 2-3-0)
25