Thread by @rlippmann

Welcome back everyone! I'm hydrated, caffeinated, got my typing fingers all warmed up, and am ready to bring you the December 8, 2021 #stlboa meeting.

I'm not sure I really want to know how much this meeting is going to delay the start of my vacation, so we're not even going to play that game.

In addition to the remap perfection, we've got 1st round approval of the Downtown CID on tap.

We are taking up miscellaneous/unfinished business right now, in order to assign the ward numbers. It's going to be a coin toss. Ald. Vollmer is explaining the process now.

They will flip a coin. If it comes up one way, they will start with odds and number from N to A one to 14. If it comes up the other way, they'll start with evens and number the other way.

Heads is odd, tails is even.

The clerk of the board, @SharitaRogers6, will flip the coin. Vollmer is heading over to her office. It will hit the ground, and where it lands.

It'll be on camera. Tune in here: us02web.zoom.us/j/83846505095

Tyus brings up making sure that odds and evens are spread evenly across north and south.

The coin has been flipped, and they're trying to get the camera on the coin. Guenther as the camera moves. "I feel sick."
It's apparently heads, but they are having trouble getting it to focus/show up on camera.

They might put a dot or something on one side and flip it again, because the silver reflects badly.

They've circled heads with a Sharpie. Both @shanecohn and @24thWardSTL are raising questions about whether we are flipping it again, because they saw it was heads.

FWIW, I had trouble making the distinction, but I wasn't looking at the screen the entire time.

Vollmer, Rogers (the clerk), Reed and others said they saw heads. Reed says we should defer to the neutral body, or Rogers.

Rogers says when she flipped the coin and it landed on the ground, it was heads. Apparently, a very early shot was heads.

Shot = camera shot. As I mentioned, I did not see all of the angles.

.@TinaSweetTPihl (who has an adorable doggo as her background) asked how it will be determined who is running for 2 vs 4 years. That was in the charter change.

Tyus raises a point that having the clerk say it was heads puts a lot of pressure on the clerk versus marking the coin and throwing it again. She says just going along is not the best way to go.

Collins-Muhammad says he also saw heads, but for transparency, we should do the flip again.

Marlene Davis agrees with Tyus - we should consider the first toss a test, and now we have the opportunity to know for sure with the mark.

(This is going to be a harbinger of this meeting. I can feel it.)

Davis - we need to make sure that our communication is clear about this process.

.@Aldermanjoe makes a motion to start over and do best two out of three tosses. He gets a second even before Reed asks for it.

.@24thWardSTL (Narayan) - the fact that we are calling the result of a coin toss into question is absurd. It was called heads in the room, I saw heads, others saw heads. Do ppl really have that little faith in those in the room?

.@AnnieRiceStL says she also saw heads. She says she didn't speak up b/c she doesn't open her mic unless she has been recognized. She agrees with Narayan on the one flip language.

Guenther agrees with Narayan and Rice. He says we had the clerk, a neutral body, in the room.

.@jcoatar echoes Rice that he doesn't open his mic unless he is recognized, and that he saw heads as well. He says this is adding more controversy to the process.

.@Schweitzer88 - I also saw heads, and I agree with previous speakers.

.@Alderman14, with annoyance. "Just move on."

Tyus - what was the point of showing us the coin? Reed - to show that it wasn't a two-headed or two-tailed coin. And he says showing the flip was to show that it landed.

Tyus - who decided on the one toss process? There's no language that says there can't be a practice toss.

This question did not really get answered as to whom came up with this process.

30 minutes of debate on a coin toss, by the way.

Vollmer to Tyus - this is not all on the clerk. I was in the room and also saw heads. And it matters not to me.

Vollmer is now talking about video replay. Ironically, this is not the first time I've experienced the need for video replay in politics.

Vollmer - this process is not about any of us on the current board. It's about the future of St. Louis. We're trying to move forward with something that creates a better situation for a long time.

(We're still debating the motion to make it best 2 of 3, but we're then going to probably get into a discussion about whether the 1st toss was 1, or if we start all over.)

J. Boyd - I find this all kind of comical. But the actions of not having the board involved in the process have consequences. I personally don't care, but I want everyone to feel like it's a fair process.

Narayan for the 2nd time (with a flag background today) - if anyone had an issue with the process, the time to bring that up was before the toss. Where do we stop?

Narayan - if we have so little faith in our clerk, our president of the board, and the chair of legislation, I am worried for the city of St. Louis.

Tyus - we didn't know there would be an issue with the lighting until it happened. I couldn't see it either. It's not ridiculous to me to make sure this is a completely fair process. If you had been affected by process as I was, she says, you wouldn't be cavalier.

Redistricting is a highly personal issue for Tyus. In 2001, they brought the 20th Ward, which was her ward in north St. Louis, and dropped it into Cherokee Street, then drew her into a new ward that broke up her community.

Tyus - this is not a good map for north St. Louis. She says she was prepared to vote for it anyway, because they did the best job they could w/ what had happened to N. St. Louis in 20 years.

Tyus - I didn't see the result of the toss with my own eyes. That's why I can't let this go. I don't see why 2 of 3 is a bad idea.

Tyus calls the question on the underlying motion, which is to make it 2 of 3.

Reed - a head flip did not benefit the chair of the committee (Vollmer) - it made him an odd ward, which means a two-year election. And the flip gave Tyus an even ward which mean 4-year, but she was fighting for transparency. That says a lot about this board.

.@Aldermanjoe - if we do 2 of 3, does the next toss decide things, or are we staring over?

Rogers says a 2nd flip was tails, but they did not show it on camera. Reed says they would do two more flips for that reason, if the motion of 2 of 3 is approved.

Strike that, reverse that. It sounds like we may be starting over, with 3 new flips.
(I don't know. I'm not sure they know.)

Reed - if there is nothing new to add, can we please take the vote. We have a very long agenda.

Vollmer - if the vote to 2 out of 3 does pass, I think we need to start over and toss three times.

.@shanecohn (with a vintage #stlboa backdrop) also pushes for a fresh two of three. And he adds that the entire body probably needed to vote on the process to begin with, and this would do that.

@24thWardSTL - I never thought I would argue this long about a coin toss.

He asks for clarity that, if this motion passes, are we starting 0-0? Reed affirms. Yes.

.@CaraSpencerSTL for the first time. She suggests a coin toss for more coin tosses. I'm not sure if she was joking.

Here we go.

This is on 2 of 3.

On an amusing note - today is the first time, per Joe Vollmer, that video replay was used in a pro sports context. I can't make any of this up.

Joe Vollmer officially moves BB101AA (the map) off the informal calendar to regular perfection (debate allowed, 1st round approval) calendar.

With that done, I'm taking a quick bathroom break.

The board is now on second reading of bills, which is a procedural step that officially acknowledges that bills have been reported from committee.

That item of business is done. We are now on perfection consent (mass first-round approval off bills.)

Before we get to the map, we have two bills adopting the Downtown STL Inc CID. Here's some background on what turned out to be a controversial renewal of that tax district.
(The bills are 123 and 124)
news.stlpublicradio.org/show/st-louis-…

The signatures to renew the CID were verified last week. @jcoatar says it took a long time to get the needed # because of COVID.
He says the renewal of the CID incorporates the ideas that detractors brought up.

Coatar - the renewed CID will focus on cleanliness and safety, such as the clean teams, cameras, the bike unit and secondary security. It will also focus on beautification.

Plus infrastructure. The CID uses its funds to help provide the local match for projects like the Cycle Track along Tucker and the 7th Street expansion.

Coatar - this CID is critical to downtown. The city cannot provide these services. If it is not renewed, downtown will have even more challenges.

.@Pageforward5 (a co-sponsor of the bill) - I agree w/ Coatar than an effective CID is critical. He says he opposes 124, which extended the terms of the CID until 2041.

BB123, which renews the CID, carries on a voice vote. I heard @BrandonFBosley say no.

Now is BB124, which says if the CID gets challenged, eliminated, etc, it allows the CID to spend down the money that is left in its account.

Coatar has an amendment to this bill that changes the length of this bill from 20 years to 3 years. It would give the CID's board three years to spend down leftover money if its existence gets challenged.

Coatar makes a motion to adopt amendment #1. They're going to go ahead and do a roll call on this amendment b/c the Zoom delay meant people didn't get a request in before Jeffrey Boyd (who is temp in the chair) called the vote.

Pretty sure this has the votes. I wasn't tracking roll call and I have to go let the dog in before she disturbs the entire neighborhood.

And never mind, she's sprawled in the sun and giving me a look of, "you want me to do do what?" So she's staying outside.

Amendment was adopted. Now we'll vote on the underlying bill.

Coatar again - this bill allows us to spend existing dollars if the CID is invalidated.

.@Pageforward5 (a member of the board of directors of the current CID) - I agree with the importance of an effective CID to downtown. I'm not a member of any opposition group. These are just my personal notes after hours of listening.

Page - petitions were pursued and collected over several months, and the needed bodies said they got enough signatures. And he says that renders BB124 superfluous.

He says the state laws he has been able to find say the funds have to be returned to those who paid if a CID is declared invalid. He says it's invoking the dark side of the force to have a plan B if the petitions are declared invalid.

(I haven't dug into this issue, so I don't have the fact-check immediately available).

Page says he is also worried about a lack of oversight if the CID is extended this way, and the citywide precedent it sets.

Page - this would say to voters, if you don't get the signatures, there will be shenanigans and the CID will get renewed anyway.

(Page is on his phone, and when it rang, it knocked him into mute.)

Page - I think this is bad legislation, and I oppose BB124.

.@BrandonFBosley now in opposition. He's reading from an email from a downtown constituent who disputes they got enough signatures, and the ability to appeal that is critical to the fairness of the process.

Bosley reading this email - BB124 is a way to try and cut off that appeal.

Bosley - you're never going to get 100% agreement on anything. But everyone needs to have a voice. BB124 takes away the voice of people who may think the dollars are best serving the DT population.

Bosley - I don't think the opposition groups are opposed to the people running the CID personally. But they think their voices are not being heard.

Bosley - downtown is all of ours, not just those who represent it. We can look at what's happening there and understand why people might say, the money isn't being spend appropriately/correctly.

Bosley - I really do hope that if the CID is determined to not be renewed, that it isn't detrimental to downtown. We do need the extra dollars, but I want people to feel that their voices are heard.

.@AnnieRiceStL asks @jcoatar where the language is that the taxes would not be collected during the three-year wind-down. He says it's state law that covers the issue - signatures are needed to extend the tax.

There's about $1.5M in the CID account, and this year's assessment will bring in about $3M. Coatar says Page is wrong about the funds being returned. He just wants to make sure that services don't get disrupted.

Coatar recognized to close on BB124. He says he appreciates the discussion, and says there has been a lot of conversations with opponents trying to make progress.

Coatar - we're here today in a situation where no one is happy and in politics, that likely means you're doing your job.

(Reminds me of something a state rep said during final week of session this year - "a good bill is one you vote for with a little taste of bile in your mouth. A bad bill, you vote and throw up immediately.")

Coatar renews his motion for perfection. Guenther requests a roll call. I'm not going to track, but will let you know the final vote.

This is going to be close.

BB124 is NOT PERFECTED by a vote of 11-11-4.

And here we go on the map.

Joe Vollmer makes the motion for perfection, with a 2nd from @Alderman14. There will been at least one amendment, and the way Vollmer is speaking, there are multiple.

Amendment 1 is turning the letters into numbers by the coin toss process that took up an HOUR of debate. Here they are again. Look at the numbers under odd.

Thank GOODNESS there was no discussion.

Amendment 2 per Vollmer is scrivener's errors, where the text wasn't exactly following the software used to draw the map. (Needless to say, St. Louis street names can be really weird.)

.@Schweitzer88 - do we need to change these to be numbered? Reed says yes. So we have to amend the amendment to substitute the letters.

Amendment to the amendment adopted.

(Just a note - I don't have the text of these amendments, so I have to rely on what the alders are saying about them to figure out what's going on.)
.@AnnieRiceStL on the underlying amendment - some of these look like significant amendments. Did the boundaries change?

Vollmer - no. (In other words, no one is now in a new ward, or representing new territory.) The map is the map, and it's just making sure the text follows the map.

Vollmer - if you can take my word that the coin was a heads, please take my word that these are scrivener's errors. We wouldn't overturn months of work on the map with an amendment.

Amendment 2 as amended is adopted.

And here we go on the underlying map.
.@24thWardSTL - thank you to Vollmer and the legislation committee. This was a beast to get across the finish line. The members did a good job of setting their own interests aside.

Narayan - it's a tricky process to do at any time, but especially in the midst of reduction. (Ed. note - and a pandemic.)

.@AnnieRiceStL - this is a really hard process, and I continue to believe that one that takes us out would be a better one.

Rice - I want as we continue to shape our government for our citizens to be more involved.

Rice - I don't know if Citizens for Fair Maps ever got answers to their questions.

She asks Vollmer to yield to ask some of those questions. He will.
Rice - how were Hispanic or AAPI considered?

(Sheena Hamilton addressed this in her opinion. She said it would be possible to draw a majority AAPI/Hispanic ward, but it was not compact.)
This is basically the answer Vollmer gave.

Here is that portion of the opinion.

Rice - how were Hispanic voters who ID as white counted? In Hispanic, or white?
Vollmer - we counted on race (black/white) versus Hispanic.

Rice - what about Wards C and D? (Compactness) They are not compact, but compactness can be ignored if the ward meets other important criteria.

As Vollmer was about to answer, Reed jumped in and suggested he refer back to the opinion, because that's the city's legal voice.

Basically, don't give this organization, which may sue to challenge the map, ammunition.

Here's that letter - documentcloud.org/documents/2112…

Rice is saying now that it wasn't one organization that sent the letter, but several.

Rice - the folks that were on the letter are deeply invested in their community and they deserve to have their questions answered. This has nothing to do w/ supporting one process or another.

Here is the wording for Prop R, which will be on the ballot in April.

static1.squarespace.com/static/602c023…

Rice has just asked Reed if it's appropriate for him to be weighing in on questions directed to Vollmer if he's acting as chair of the meeting. I didn't get the answer because had to quickly deal with a personal matter.

I think the question we are dealing with right now deals with neighborhoods. Vollmer says about 85 percent of the neighborhoods are represented by one, and the others are represented by only 2, as opposed to 4 or 5.

Vollmer says some of the lines might look weird because they tried to keep parks intact as well. And he says 3 of the white-majority wards cross Delmar.

Vollmer - what we have here is a board bill that includes tons of input from everyone. We had 14 meetings, and got more than 450 public comments.

Rice asked a question about whether the map brings the city closer to where wards would vote for a candidate opposite their majority. Reed interrupts to say, go back to the legal opinion.

Vollmer - that question presumes that I know how people are going to vote. I don't.

Vollmer - we drew the map for whoever runs in 2023. I don't know who is going to run.

Reed jumps in again to say that any further questions from the letter be directed to the city counselor. Rice says that was the last question from the letter.

Rice points out that previous debate on BB124 included a letter from a group that is already actively challenging something in court, and we don't have a legal case on the map yet.

Rice (who is a lawyer) - if I were building a legal case, my questions would have been MUCH more specific.

Rice is now asking about Ward I, which goes a bit into Dutchtown. If we are trying to keep neighborhood continuity, she says, that was one that stood out.

Vollmer says it was a minority-majority issue. Here is that border in question. The blue is old I, the pink is old L

Rice - this process went far better than my worst expectations, and maybe a little worse than my best expectations, which I think is good. I hope we continue to look at reforming the process.

.@BStingSTL - are we expecting something else a clarifying opinion from the city counselor on the issues that @AnnieRiceStL raised?
Reed - no. The counselor's original opinion addressed them.

Stephens says he will be asking additional questions of Hamilton.

Holy crap, we just perfected the map on a voice vote.
Stephens is present, Todd abstained.
We literally debated a coin flip longer than this map.

Reed - this Board is amazing. We just voted, almost unanimously, to pass a map that draws half of you out of existence.

.@SharitaRogers6 has officially read the Friday meeting into the record. As I pointed out earlier, I see some question as to whether it meets the board's rules because of the amendments on the bill.
And we're adjourned. Just shy of 3 hours.