Thread by @redistrictAZ

While we are waiting for today's mapping exercises to begin...
"Democracy not only requires equality but also an unshakable conviction in the value of each person, who is then equal. Cross cultural experience teaches us not simply that people have different beliefs,

but that people seek meaning and understand themselves in some sense as members of a cosmos ruled by God." ~ Jeane Kirkpatrick

If you want to follow along: here is the WebEx link:azgov.webex.com/azgov/j.php?MT…

And the comment Link: (open in about 15 minutes: forms.gle/djgVgZkAKyxK3r…

Or- the always truly 24/7 connect-us link: irc.az.gov/contact-us

8:09 - diving right in --

Comments on public comments -
Com. Lerner says thank you and stay calm.
Com. Mehl says lots of late night reading.
Com. Neuberg thanks the "great" team. 104plans submitted as of today..

Update on racially polarized voting report - was just sent to legal for their review -- district-by-district review being done by legal-this report; this is the written report of info provided by Dr. Handley already.
Legal says they will have a report for E-session -next item..

Sponsor Break:
here is a You -Tube link of hte meeting happening right now. It is about 90 seconds behind the Web-Ex - and far less annoying..

yesterday 86 -today 104 - 8 of those were Latino Coalition?
Neuberg asks about poss. for public to get help? In business mtgs there will be continued training and COULD schedule technical training...
An expensive diversion...
Com. Neuberg "public getting more comfortable"

Now going into E-Session w/ Legal Counsel and key staff - not "too long"

Well, that certainly makes it easy to plan the break...

While we are waiting~the competitive scores of the new visualizations
CD plans - yesterday v. 3.5 ~ Partisan bias, 8.0%; Efficiency gap, 4.9%
CD4.0: Partisan bias, 5.5%; Eff. gap, 2.5%
CD4.1: Partisan bias, 6.2%; Eff. gap, 3.2%
CD4.2: Partisan bias, 6.6%; Eff. gap, 3.8%

AND per the Timmons/IRC measures and criteria for competitive ranges:
Yesterday's 3.5: 2C, 3D, 4R
CD4.0: 4C, 2D, 3R
CD4.1: 4C, 2D, 3R
CD4.2: 2C, 3D, 4R

4.0

Goal of 4.1 build on 4.0 - integrates LD D7 -keep Gila County out of D5; Gila River and Maricopa Reservation moved into D7; Glendale moved into D8;

D1 pulls pop from D8; D4 pulls pop from D1 - moves it N into Tempe; D5 pulls pop fromD4 into Chandler and Gilbert; D2 takes all of Gila County from D5; D5 moves south into Kearney and Florence and N of Coolidge

Balanced; all pop assigned - Not able to exactly replicate the LC boundary...

On 4.2 - a separate branch - Using LC D7 - goal: "consolidate" Latino neighborhoods w/o going into MarCo: went into Yuma; Split Santa Cruz County; collected pop from Marana; pop S of AirForce base

moved into D7; balanced and all pop assigned - all requests fulfilled,,

Now discussion:
Lerner prefers 4.0 or 4.1 - keepCOI - 4.0 incorporate LCmaps; keeps Ak-Chin and Maricopa - helps w/ tribal representation; keeps D7 in Pima as requested - D9 also going into MarCo

Argument that we don't want D7 to reach into MarCo is inconsistent w/ allowing it for D9; also Tollesonsaid they wanted to be there

Mehl: 4.2 a significantly better map - I have been consistent from day 1 - urban area of Pima and Pinal should not go into both urban areas

just a "number of things: and geo a little less cumbersome - I objected yesterday, I will continue to object - we have equal mayor upset he says

Meh lmoves that 4.2 is the new base map -- York seconds -- I am struck by how immediate he does that - I've stated my opinion and therefore; let;'s move on

Lerner addresses her concerns - includes too much of central Tucson - lower HVAP - D2 is comp, in 4.1 &4.0 in not in 4.2

also does not like Santa Cruz Co. split; belongs in D7 - much in common w/ COI w/ D7; D6 is split in six different counties - how is that in the best interest of those folks

Overall is a benefit - and majority of west valley stays together -
When we look at all the constitutional. criteria 4.2 does not work as well
Neuberg has a preference for 4.2 -0 more balanced - template for changes - aligned more evenly and cleanly w/ COI

More Neuberg Now we can tweak and try and make it more competitive -
Not a great starting point - start w/ one does not preclude adding principles of
Watchman - 4.0 a better map - includes in DC the city of Maricopa and Ak-Chin reservation -

Like we have moved from Western to eastern orientation - 4.0 more comp in D1, 2, 4 and 6; Biggest emphasis is it adds two more tribes too the district which gives that COI more voting power..

Neuberg - what about s. Am Indian tribes in D7 - pop is spread -- 4% throughout the state - don't want to constrain ourselves throughout the state for this one COI --
Watchman - while 4% of pop; 1/3 of land mass are reservations - could divide into Northern andSouthern tribes

From the 4.0 version - two tribes are separated into COI - T'O nation - many live in Mexico - Tribal capitol in Sells - important keep them in D7;
York: tribes would have more cohesiveness as interest groups - could have more in common w/ southern border?

Neuberg: wonders inNative Indian community would be better served isn D7 w/ DC representation -- Committed and interested to maximize comp. to the extent that blah, blah, because narrowing that range does increase accountability - want to do that in D2

Watchman - most tribes are rural in nature - basic services are a struggle -- drawing a distinction between N and S tribes? Probably -- V4.0 improves the numbers - that is what it boils down. Imp distinction - land mass - trying to improve - recognizes long-standing history

Mehl calls for the vote. Neuberg talks about pop equality - and deep respect for history but have to use six specific criteria
Lerner - I am looking at all the criteria - if we talk about representation - I am looking to find a way to balance all of that -

of the three maps that we have 4.2 is the LEAST competitive
Neuberg- other COI disadvantaged?
Lerner: Yes. Latino, rural and mining communities
Neuberg: we can work to "mitigate challenges"

VOTE: 3;2 - Lerner and Watchman NO
@ArizonaIRC Independent Chairperson Erika Neuberg votes with the two partisan Republican commissioners for the most republican biased plan on the table and speaks of "mitigating challenges" and "deep commitment"

4.2 it is - @ndc_doug says Ak-Chin and Maricopa are adjacent to D2 and could rotate pop. into D2 -
Mehl - has no opposition to that! better way to mitigate & balance - bring D6 into casa Grande and pickup Maricopa and D7 comes more into Tucson

Lerner asks to look at border of D7 and D6 in Tucson and suggests - cites input from elected officials - take university - as and ASU person - this might be better for AU - take area - and move to D6 -- AU is a COI - has been attached to get to pop. would create 2 strong District

Mehl: our suggestions are oppositional - draw both
Neuberg- what prob. are you trying to fix -
Lerner - rep will be split -Yuma - tribes, part of Tucson. don't see that now -- seperatingthat out -- just seat as beneficial Tucson

Mehl - agree w/ everything Shereen just said, disagree w/ conclusion
Move D7 east;
Lerner - would like to see both options - and curious how this will work from the coalition perspective - cont. to have concerns - not sure how to accommodate inD( about Tolleson

D9 - not D()
Mehl - goal is by Thursday is to approve DRAFT maps -- time to make changes and get a lot of specific and detailed feedback after people see maps
Lerner -

Lerner -can we get Casa Grande whole -either D6 or D7;
Maricopa should be in D7 - raises issue of stretching N - another districts Maricopa - school districts intersect w/ Maricopa
Mehl- asks for two visualizations - need to see to see what i think is best

1 w/ Casa Grande and Maricopa in D6 - tribes wherever; D7 pop moves east into Tucson
Ak-Chin and Gila tribes in rural community (D2); T'O different
Lerner - then h/2move Maricopa closest to Phx/MarCo? Keep connected and all inD2 andD7;
Neuberg - agree w/ ComLerner reasoning

Ak-Chin, Gila tribes, Maricopa all stay together -says Com. Lerner -

Neuberg -makes sense to move these communities to D7 - and wants to get to D4 and D5 -
@ndc_doug Q: bump of saddle brook - saddlebrook ranch -- Mehl - yes - move it in - it is a COI of Oro Valley

D4 and D5 Now -
Neuberg -pleased w/ general grouping - make both districts up a few lines - Move D4 a little east - "a lot of blending"
@ndc_doug looking at a vertical v. a horizontal split
Neuberg asks see Power Rd. ; not farther E of Power Rd

believes these changes would moderate the "extremeness" of those districts - "a priority of mine to narrow these gaps"
@ndc_doug we can look at data and see what adjustments deliver

Mehl- move Marana into D6 - not much pop. but a part of growth area and will be incorporated. into Marana
Lerner - Still concerned with the six-way county split

Neuberg - counties are less obvious in urban areas than in rural areas ?? is this correct?
Lerner and Neuberg talk about lack of competitiveness
D9 andD8 -
@ndc_doug suggests moving Latino pop into other districts
move El Mirage ; N Glendale - I17/ lots of ideas

York- objects to suggested changes to historical districts -- he is protecting some area -- La Habra neighborhood?
Lots of directions - D1 - D8 - Glendale

Neuberg - Moving to a break --
York- one more comment - Move D5 N up to ray rd - alone 202 corridor in Chandler "tech sector" has anyone heard anyone besides Commissioner York ever mentioned the "tech sector"
Lerner - interested unseeing all of it..

Lerner - go back in time -- in looking at D2 and D9 -- and past 10 - 20 years - Prescott have been aligned w/ Colorado River - would like to see -and hear what people think - D2 - would be Rep-leaning; it would align Prescott w/ communities

Lerner Asks for test map of Prescott and Quad cities w/ Mohave - could break at Mingus Mountain - could be all of Yavapai -- can we just see what would happen?
Neuberg Asks _ where to pick up pop -
Lerner - Graham and Greenlee -

says @ndc_doug Graham and Greenlee has half the pop - D2
Lerner says we are taking rural areas and moving into urban areas east and west --
Neuberg - opens looking into this - wants to be careful we are not going in circles - think there will be challenges

Mehl - these are not my maps
and - would have been better to start with theater map -- Lerner - appreciate challenge -- challenge of requirement to process back-to-back assessment

Neuberg - what of we went back to the northern distirct --
Lerner - this is my processing - of looking at communities of interest

Neuberg - just as a reminder - I did not vote for this map because of the spread
Lerner - I agree - that's why I am only thinking about Prescott...
York asks about balance -- and suggests a break

Neuberg asks mappers - what would be efficient for you?
Suggest 45 minute break to allow them to get mappers on task and come back to LD plans-- maybe - of course they did not specify ..

Making a leap here and thinking the @ArizonaIRC will come back to talk about LD plans and changes discussed yesterday..
here are some numbers to consider -

Starting pt. yesterday:
LD v3.2: Partisan bias, 3.0R%; Efficiency gap, 1.2%R
LD v4.0: Partisan bias, .1%R; Efficiency gap, .9%D
LD4.1: Partisan bias, .2%R; Efficiency gap, .8%D

Via @PlanScore on competitiveness
LD v3.2: 6C, 12D, 12R
LD v4.0: 3C, 14D, 13R
LD v4.1: 3C, 14D, 13R

BACK NOW -LIVE

Zooming into Kyrene School District LD 12 I think

incorporate- Saddlebrook - but not Saddlebrook Ranch -main goal of 4.0

4.1 build on 4.0 - takes tombstone and Cochise Co into LD 19

That's it for the changes in this map...
Neuberg asks for "reflections"
Lerner - maps are very similar - prefers 4.0 for a couple of diff reasons - odd shape is Nogales
LD 21 is odd shape and brings some border towns together .. In general the districts are compact and tend to

respect COI - says Lerner on 4.0
Mehl - asks: the only difference -would prefer 3.5 or 3.2 - problems with this -- problems everywhere
Mehl does not want Cochise Co to be split -- Ilot of other problems -
Lerner 4.1 could live w/ that - we shoudl move forward and work from the

York makes motion; watchman seconds - 4.1 the starting point...
Neuberg - broader comment - the "swingy ness" of the districts - very few swing. very locked in./ Would like to collectively tackle to maximize all the COI - and get to a closer spread

Neuberg makes a long statement for the record - that she isn't emphasizing competitiveness - but wants to maximize voices...
York asks for clarification change in 8 and 9 - @ndc_doug says it'd be better to address question after lunch --
Ah- about the LC maps -

Neuberg says we're not ready to go into numbers; don't have data ???
Don't have data --- does anyone know what she is saying here?
Neuberg to be clear: I am not in favor of maximizing the number of competitive districts

at the expense of other criteria - don't limit ourselves to define how many competitive disticts --
'OK this is just a word salad - tossed, not composed...

enter @ndc_doug if we look at D 16 and D 17 -17 is almost perfectly competitive; and LD 16 is that S Pinal Co district - is close to competitive - Marana-OroValley-CasaAdobe

LD 18 and 19 could be adjusted -- you could look there -- also in Phx
Mehl - to improve COI and improve competitiveness - try this - in 17 move north into Pinal Co and capture Saddlebrook. S ranch and Red Rock; LD 17 move south take up some of 19 - Casas Adobe - split the

foothills not the river - Ina Cole rd...
Mehl just mentioned comments from the Southern AZ Leadership Council - WHICH HE FOUNDED!!!

Lerner interested to see impacts andantes that LD 17can not get any more competitive than it is right now. Mehl pushed back - yes- but that has to change if we are going to improve other districts - asks see how to change to districts to connect different COI

Is anyone else interested to know what property is owned by Commissioner Mehl and how his personal interest overlaps what changes he is advocating for in the LD and CD plans?
I am #Curious

Talk of lunch
@ndc_doug - onCo River side - LD 30 - points out changes impacted by LD 23 - so there are really 3 Co River districts
Lerner notes D2 - coming into Phx at White Tanks -what we were trying to avoid -- fixing the yellow neck here

Neuberg has a "conceptual question" -looking atGoodyear and Avondale and there is "robust" grove that is active and alive -are we honoring their growth and entrepreneurial spirit? and see LD plan there CD plan -- and if screwed in CD plan can we compensate at LD level

Lerner - good point about Buckeye - is currently divided -
York- the dividing line is the Aqua Fria river - Buckeye, Goodyear and remainder of West Valley should be connected - the natural divide - just west of the 22-
Lerner - Ld 22 is one of the LC districts

Maybe they should invite the LC to come tone of the @ArizonaIRC meetings to provide a PUBLIC introduction of the districts they drew and why - then they could accept/reject or modify based on insight - rather than guessing
Lots of chit chat about Buckeye -- new/old/Latino/etc

Old Town Buckeye is in LD 22 (LC district); hi growth area is in other district.
Lerner asks to see Surprise -Surprise in red outline
Neuberg - what is the spread 25+ - thinks it will marginalize communities.

Lerner comment: we rec'd a map in Show Low - they should like what they see in D7 --

And I will take this opportunity to point out these paper maps have NOT BEEN POSTED and are not available to the public.

Lunch Break.
Coming back in 60 minutes -

LD plan is a mess. And they have absolutely no structure, format, outline of how to approach it. They get sucked into the vortex of Mehl's agenda in Tucson; York's "tech Corridor"; Neuberg's opining

and get absolutely nowhere. So here's my suggestion:
Start in MarCo - start in the NE corner and move south; reconcile options w/ Gila and Pinal counties; tackle So. MarCo, and end in the NW valley.
* take a look; assess... adjust.
It's hard. It won't be any easier tomorrow.

waiting for the meeting begin post-lunch -I'm going to riff on Neuberg's game on competitiveness. She regularly pushes back she is not concerned with "arbitrary" numbers of competitiveness - to which the five commissioners unanimously agreed

Instead she wants to use her own, personal, arbitrary standard of "spread." One could be forgiven for considering this is her version of "competitiveness light" and way to have her cake and eat it too.

She gets to say she is not obsessed with competitiveness and thereby disarm the Republican acolytes who insist they were done wrong by competitiveness ten years ago; and reap the accolades she wants by trying to diminish the polarization by keeping the spread "reasonable"

- which only she can judge.
Here is the thing: "spread" is not a constitutional criteria. Competitiveness is. @ArizonaIRC created a metric by which they would judge competitiveness. She/they can choose not to use it. But she/they don't get to create a new criteria.

LIVE - Back from Lunch
picking up on the VRA districts - slight differences in hte muted green color ..

Mehl asks: Was there less of Yuma?
York - says the diff. is the geography around the base?
York - in compactness - it is not compact?
@ndc_doug the @ArizonaIRC map is more compact now..
Are they prioritizing compactness over VRA? Really?

Neuberg says we can move E/W
York - Think @ndc_doug is showing us the new district - there isn no correlation between new and old districts

Coming clean - I have no idea what they are talking about -

ahhhh - it is the "new" vra district the LC submitted --

Lerner - a general comments: Part of why I liked 4.0 and 4.1 - I understand some of the concerns re:competitiveness -in broad terms - 4.1 comes up with a 50/50 split - animist of the districts are compact and contiguous and recognize COI

Looking for parameters of what we are looking to do... looking at the urban area - what changes are we making based on
As a state we are competitive overall - but not district-by-district

Neuberg says she does not think this map would create a functioning representations Neuberg says a bunch of nonsense -- Says she does not have a command of the data - she is asking the mappers to make those decisions based on their expertise of the census blacks

Watchman - asks about polarization report is?

Legal: VRA compliance is a ? of performance - experts are doing a district-by-district analysis - CD plan will be completed at 3:30 LD plan maybe today or tomorrow am - of this 4.1 map.

Neuberg - this is great timing - we can give our conceptual suggestions and making conceptual progress on the maps. She really said that .

York - want to talk about Tempe- split in 12-9 - 8 and Scottsdale - Western Mesa - Respecting Kyrene School district boundary --

Lerner - Tempe is currently divided in three districts -
York: we had suggested we would combine S. Scottsdale w/ ASU community.
Lerner - D8 kind of does than.. not a lot different
@ndc_doug - pop balance rotate here and there; bring 8 south there is nowhere for XD to go

Lerner - Ft. McDowell wants to be w/ Fountain Hills
Tempe right now is w/ Salt River Tempe has U area, N/S different -
York - putting Uni. into D9 - student housing
Lerner- complicates how Salt River connects - wants to be w/ tempe

if borders between8 and 9 move it ripples all the way through the rural area -
York- wants Paradise Valley into one area -N of the mountain preserve -
1 - 3- 4 - 8 can move around to meet COI in that area - Impacts whole map if you change 8 and 9 --

York - says balanced but influenced by Maj-Min interest - we had other priorities - appreciate comments about comp. statewide
Mehl - why I wanted to go back to 3.5 - for harmony/progress - but significant changes in MarCo. Don't want be rejected whole cloth

Lerner - Understand - just want know purpose of changes vs. making changes to make changes
York goes through laundry list 11- 22- 24- 26 - "make a lot of sense to us" - maybe want go more rural in some areas -- The guts of this map - even D 12 - it is in good shape taking in to

geography --
Lerner - we should take a look at D3 and D7 to see if they can become more impact -- Queen Creek - Apache Junction. andGold Canyon wanted to be linked - they are..

leaves on a stream- Paradise Valley whole; Wickenberg andCongress together - And Morristown - D25 or D 8 - better than D2- York says D5 ; YORK want look at 11-24-26-27 - 25 from LC
York is all about compactness and no stray lines -- the least important criteria

Lerner - Does Black Canyon City belong w/ D3 or D?
York D3 - from a growth standpoint - semi-conductor industry will be a desirable new home community -
D28 and 23 - line across Carefree Hwy - move into D3

Move arm into D4 - D4 gets PV - D4 moves so- goes into D3; D8 picks up fromD3 -- York people in D4 have more in common with people north; D3 moves W into D1-- my head is spinning - like the map...

That little exercise got a "nice work" from the Independent chairperson. Who said not a word during the entire conversation. They are most proud --

York - now wants to make Buckeye whole- @ndc_doug says impacts VRA district -- Sundance area @ndc_doug is big

Lerner - didn't we talk about this - old and new parts of town.. appreciate interest in recognizing growth in Buckeye --
Buckeye prison is in D2 - could check numbers and swap prison and Sundance (both about 4K)

Neuberg: and you think that is helping Buckeye? laughter - @ndc_doug no impact on prisoners either way.
York: yes -- back to COI convo.
Lerner - adjacent districts - if we shift lines we might find more balance
lots of small micro places

Was supposed to be a 10 minute break-- An organization that truly cared about public engagement might post updates - even when they are on a break that goes long... does @ArizonaIRC care about public engagement - or only enough to go through the motions? #Curious

And now they are back

Navajo Nation suggestion for D7
-7% population deviation
@ndc_doug - at a glance it looks similar -

@ndc_doug Flagstaff completely out; Includes Winslow, Show Low, Pinetop, Lakeside - all in D7

7.05% deviation - could still stay within 10% - it would be "presumptively constitutional" says @ndc_doug
Neuberg asks for reactions: Mehl -goes counter to everything we've talked about - trading Flagstaff for White Mountains;
"I would not support it" ~Put that Flag out front!

Neuberg: "To alter equal pop. would require an explanation of what we are honoring here. I do not see it here."
Watchman: we are all trying to balance -

Neuberg: we appreciate the feedback - there is consensus that we will continue from 4.1
So that sounded like a hard "NO" to me...

Mehl says I'm really struggling with this 4.1 - asks for alternative map going back to 3.2 - take a look at LC districts w/o trying to get to 8th district -

Ed Note: Have their legal counsel briefed them on VRA? What the serious heck?

More Mehl - Don't want D16 to come as far north and shoudl inc. Marana down south...
Lerner - appreciate you saying you do not want to go back - but now are going back

Lerner - sure give it a shot - lookin gat 3.2 - a LOT of work to do -- the same partisanship is evident in 3.2 and 4.1 -- A ton of work either way.. All for the effort - and have real concerns of 3.2 map...

And Lerner says interesting to hear from Legal onVRA
@ndc_doug - it is not the coalition districts that are locking us in -- it is D 15 and D 7 -- We can do it -
York - only a few changes to coalition maps - many similar --

walking @ArizonaIRC through deficits of 3.2 as it stands now - underpopulated districts - lack of competitive districts - coalition maps not integrated -
York - it is our job to stay within current boundaries (He means no more VRA district than currently exist..) @CivilRights

Mehl - should not take them as rote as we have done in 4.1 -we have disturbed COI in MarCo--

For those who have not been paying attention: VRA and equal population are superior to the other four criteria
Mehl -obvious changes - get Marana in w/ Oro Valley

Legal says get it to us by midnight - we'll get it to east coast ppl and we'll get it to you in AM -- hopefully
Lerner - questioning process going back - and adding "obvious changes"
Mehl - Because they have pop balance anyway -
Neuberg - feel free to incorporate other thing

we've discussed --
Lerner - making them face what they are doing - - if we go back to 3.2 do pop balance - VRA -I don't remember all our suggested changes - concerned about need to rehash --

There main things
1) integrate Latino Coalition districts
2) Kyrene school district united
3) Oro Valley and Marana
Mehl - and other changes from 4.2 to now anyway -- if any are obvious as you are trying to balance --
Lerner asks that occurs w/ both maps

Legal doesn't remember if there was a vote this am on the LD plans

Neuberg: Verde Valley should not control what happens in MarCo - Direct quote. Especially when there is not a unified vision of what their community is.

Neuberg -need a vote
Mehl - no votes needed; just an alternative visualization -
Neuberg "stands corrected" attys concur

Item 8 - Staff report?? An entity that truly valued public participation would prioritize notice to the public about potential public meeitngs that could start as soon as Friday. If they were not simply going through the motions.

Lori VanHaren to present:

Use 10/28 and 10/29 dates as first dates if draft maps approved on Thursday

Open House at the Sheraton 7 am - 6 pm! and tech support!
Cisco and WebEx can allow call ins - two meetings proposed! Like Google Meets format

Contingency plans (can you plan contingency budgets?)

depending on venue availability - ideal proposed dates and conveniently scheduled for the public

They heard: the more accessible, the better. transcripts would be posted!

Neuberg: I don't understand the content of the meetings.

Trad. Format: Similar as previous hearings
Open Houses: data collection and tech support
Tele Town Hall - similar to listening tour

Neuberg: How many of each?
LVH: 2 tele town halls; 2 open houses and multiple hearings
Watchman -1) we've gone through a lot of data collection; there is no data retrieval process - 2) 12 events - need to plan for specifics - this 1/2 my life

I wonder: has anyone pointed out the lack of a data retrieval system for all the information that has been collected? hmmmm... Is this s (f) of staff? Do lawyers have insights? hmmmm...

LVH: you have been model institution for gathering information and what you to be able to discern through the process. Transcripts are posted! We can give you reports on what feedback organizations have provided. And @timmonsgroup will provide a report like to COI report -

And you have received all the paper maps .
As far as scheduling -we'll share info as soon as possible.
Neuberg: general concept - excellent - want commissioners to make appreasnaces - even for just five minutes

Neuberg says: Want to make sure there is enough FACE time - live -
As proposed now 8 are live -
Neuberg -respect Jewish and Muslims sabbath observations of Friday and Saturday evening ..

Lerner - is this all -
LVH: we could add
Lerner - likes diversity of options
Mehl - look at Nov 3 as start date; Not scheduled to do final mapping until Dec 14.

York: What is the calendar for legislative input -
Legal - up to you - you can do that at any point -before, during or after -
Lerner - and we could do some of this during our Tuesday meetings as well... correct?
LVH: We've kept Tuesdays for business meeting bec. it is hard

for staff to do both
Neuberg - Inappropriate toad to Tuesdays except for one-off invites and two of us can go together into hard torch communities - that's a possibility for us to be out there more.

Lerner - agrees w/ Com. Mehl - And give week of Thanksgiving off
Neuberg - Asks - isothere a certain number of days between mapping days
@ndc_doug - hard to predict - at least one week --
Neuberg - hearings can go into the first week of Dec & possibly start mapping before 12/4

Neuberg: asks for list - there is a lot of "clamoring" in the community as to who would get them

PR requests discussed yesterday - In E-Session - no questions

BACK to Mapping
Four new maps --

5.0 - goal unite Ak-Chin and Maricopa; increase competitiveness; move AU;

5.1 balances between D6 and d7 - SantaCruz split - Casa Grande in D6 -Maricopa in D?

5.2
Can we get D6 to include Casa Grande but can't include Maricopa

York asks to see the "Lerner Map"

Prescott -is pop balanced --

AndGraham and Greenlee go into D2 -

Neuberg -we have the ability to go home and study these options -
Mehl-when will these be posted>
@timmonsgroup -when we get back to the room
Mehl - can you add vote spread? if others agree with me.. "request withdrawn"

Meeting shutting down for the day. Back tomorrow at 8:00 am . I might be inclined toys they took one step forward and two steps beck. But that might be unkind..

the most positive thing I can say is these 5 people are attempting todo something really hard; starting

from nearly polar opposite positions; have had almost zero opportunity to get to know each other 1:1 in person and are dealing with a chair whose pov fluctuates randomly. And who speaks in circles.

More later.