Chemung County Legislative Redistricting Discussion

[Twin Tiers Living 461]

There's been a lot of discussion about legislative redistricting in Chemung County. A good overview can be found here, at 7th District Legislator Christina Sonsire's blog. That was posted Monday afternoon. 

However any ideas of the public being a part of the process were quickly shot down it seems. According to Sonsire:

Quote

By votes of 12-3 - with Legislators Mark Margeson, Bill McCarthy and myself voting no - the Legislature voted to (a) create a “Redistricting & Governmental Efficiency Committee” comprised of only legislators with no direct input from the public; (b) spend $48,000 for a consultant to undertake the research and analysis rather than having committee members do it themselves; and (3) further codify a policy that gives the legislative chairperson unilateral authority to decide what items go onto the agenda.

What are your thoughts on this process? Is there a need to re-examine the legislative districts and should the public have a role and input in the process? 

Should the legislative chair have the sole authority to decide what items ever make it to the agenda?

[Kevin 426]

While I agree the appearance of public input would be nice, it would probably be ignored anyway.  To many people vote or speak from emotions in topics like this, rather than what is good for the community.  Look at school mergers, people vote against them because they want to keep their small local districts instead of merging with another district.  Most of the time the small districts can only afford to give a basic education, where the kids would get many more options for classes in a bigger district.  

[Twin Tiers Living 461]

A new post was just put up, asking where the money will come from.

[KarenK 480]

My response to the FB post:

No direct input from the public doesn't necessarily mean you can not contact your own legislature and let them know how you feel about it, although I have no idea who will actually be on that committee. I have never been on board with the legislative chairperson deciding what goes on the agenda. That's no way to represent an entire county. I have also never been on board in regard to hiring consultants for anything unless it is clearly outside the area of expertise of the legislatures themselves (such as significant engineering/infrastructure type of research

[Chris 2,984]

Several thoughts came to mind as I read through this stuff:

1) Many people in Chemung County probably wouldn't notice a big difference if their district was combined into another larger one. They're probably used to no response or ever hearing anything from their legislator until election time rolls around anyway.

 2) Giving the legislative chair complete control over what makes it to the table is complete BS, especially in a county as small as Chemung County. There is no reason every legislator shouldn't at least be able to put something out there for discussion. But no, now we have our own version of Mitch McConnell right here in Chemung County, and you can bet at least two districts aren't going to have as much of a seat at the table ( through no fault of their legislator I might add ). 

3) $48k for an outside consultant, especially now of all times, is absolutely irresponsible spending. As KarenK said, if it were something like building a new bridge, then okay. But this doesn't strike me as something above their "paltry" pay grade. 

4) "I can't help but wonder what districts are gonna end up getting absorbed into another," he said, looking out his window.

31 minutes ago, Kevin said:

While I agree the appearance of public input would be nice, it would probably be ignored anyway.  

You're likely very correct. Especially now that the Chair has been given even more control. 

[Kevin 426]

Do they mean the agenda of the subcommittee or the council as a whole?

[Chris 2,984]

5 minutes ago, Kevin said:

Do they mean the agenda of the subcommittee or the council as a whole?

The council as a whole. It don't get on the agenda unless he says so, is how I understand it. 

[Adam 484]

11 hours ago, KarenK said:

My response to the FB post:

No direct input from the public doesn't necessarily mean you can not contact your own legislature and let them know how you feel about it, although I have no idea who will actually be on that committee. I have never been on board with the legislative chairperson deciding what goes on the agenda. That's no way to represent an entire county. I have also never been on board in regard to hiring consultants for anything unless it is clearly outside the area of expertise of the legislatures themselves (such as significant engineering/infrastructure type of research

the thing is this: yes folks can contact their Legislators, they can even still submit their concerns via email to the Legislature, and at some points even submit them in person. in these formats however there is NO opportunity for dialogue or debate. As members of these committees the public has an opportunity to actually engage and elicit responses from elected officials

[Adam 484]

the worst part is, there was a perfectly sound compromise offered that would be bipartisan and include public participation on the committee, unfortunately due to procedural wrangling and an apparent sense of fait accompli on the part of the majority, it will never even be entertained...and yes i have gone beyond complaining on Fb, and have reached out to a few Legislators for response/answers, below is an exchange with one, though public, i deleted their name just because i thought i should 

• Adam Sherwood

   

   also disappointing was the refusal to compromise by having majority/minority leaders pick two legislators each and then include 4 members of the public at large"

  Now it seems like just more foxes watching the hen-house.

   

   

   
•  

   

  REPLY:

   I 100% support the public being on the committee. Had Legislator Sonsire's amendment been able to be voted on to allow the public to be on the committee, I would have supported it.

   

   

   
•  

   

  Adam Sherwood

   correct me if I am wrong but in that case the motion could have been tabled and new routing slip submitted with revised proposal, or enough "no" votes could have been cast, defeat the motion, again then allow the proposed changes be brought to floor at later date.

   

   
•  

   

   

  REPLY:

  Adam Sherwood

   you are correct but that wouldn't have happened.
•  

   

  Adam Sherwood

   with all due respect that says a lot about the current Legislature then

 

[Hal 528]

1 hour ago, Adam said:

the worst part is, there was a perfectly sound compromise offered that would be bipartisan and include public participation on the committee, unfortunately due to procedural wrangling and an apparent sense of fait accompli on the part of the majority, it will never even be entertained...and yes i have gone beyond complaining on Fb, and have reached out to a few Legislators for response/answers, below is an exchange with one, though public, i deleted their name just because i thought i should 

•  
•  

   

   
•  

   

  Adam Sherwood

   correct me if I am wrong but in that case the motion could have been tabled and new routing slip submitted with revised proposal, or enough "no" votes could have been cast, defeat the motion, again then allow the proposed changes be brought to floor at later date.

   

   
•  

   

   

  REPLY:

  Adam Sherwood

   you are correct but that wouldn't have happened.
•  

   

 

“ You were correct but that wouldn’t have happened “ ! Really ... please explain your reasoning would have been my reply to that ! 

[Chris 2,984]

Quote

Then be more vocal about it at the time, if not beforehand!

"Shoulda, coulda, woulda..." means absolutely dick after the fact.

Unbelievable. 

[MsKreed 1,498]

12 hours ago, Adam said:

Had Legislator Sonsire's amendment been able to be voted on to allow the public to be on the committee, I would have supported it

This seems like a clear argument against "(3) further codify a policy that gives the legislative chairperson unilateral authority to decide what items go onto the agenda."

[Adam 484]

committee list is out, all but one is republican, no rural representation

[Kevin 426]

2 hours ago, Adam said:

committee list is out, all but one is republican, no rural representation

Does that surprise anyone? 

[KarenK 480]

10 minutes ago, Kevin said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Adam said:

committee list is out, all but one is republican, no rural representation

How many democrats are actually on our county board?

[Adam 484]

28 minutes ago, KarenK said:

 

How many democrats are actually on our county board?

i think only 3 or four out of 15 are Dem

 

[MsKreed 1,498]

On 2/10/2021 at 7:51 PM, KarenK said:

How many democrats are actually on our county board?

I thought it was 3 before Sonsire became unaffilliated....so just Briggs and McCarthy now?

 

Regardless of the make-up of the committee, my understanding is they all have to be roughly equal in population to adhere to a SCOTUS ruling back in the 1960s of "one man one vote" representation (the decade of squabbling over that ruing is what eventually caused the dissolution of the Board of Supervisors). Redistricting also requires a Charter Amendment that would be up for public vote. In the 1990's, I believe they had to re-format the redistricting plan at least twice before one finally passed the public vote in the 1990's.  I sure hope they don't expect to keep hiring consultants if initial proposals fail to pass the vote.

I can’t find any historical maps of legislative districts. I would love to see how the districts were originally, and what changes have been made after the 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 census results.

In 1970 (the census upon which the first Chemung County Charter based its legislative districts), this is what we had:

County population: 101,537

Legislature: 15 members

Population per district: 6,769 average

Elmira population: 39,945 or 40%, 2/5 (6 districts was proportional)

Outside city: 61,592 or 3/5 (9 districts)

 

Our current numbers using 2019 Census Bureau estimates:

County population: 83,456

Legislature: 15 members

Population per district: 5,564 average

Elmira population: 27,054  32.5 or 1/3

Outside city: 56,402 , 67.5% or 2/3

 

If we use these 2019 projections as a rough guide for 2020, and the district population size (6,769 average per district) that the Charter established it would look like this:

County population: 83,456

Legislature: 12 members

Population per district: 6,769 average

Elmira population: 27,054  32.5%, 1/3 (would be 4 districts)

Outside city: 56,402 , 67.5% or 2/3 (8 districts)

 

If I have access to historical data, I could maybe break that down better to show comparisons..... It seems like maybe 10th grade math and geometry that they are spending $48k to have done. 

Edited February 13, 2021 by MsKreed

[Buster 5]

The part of the proposed redistricting process that I question is the additional review to change the County Executive and County Treasurer positions to non elected positions. Does this means they would be appointed in the future by the legislators?   This would put way too much power into the hands of the Board Chairperson. who controls the entire agenda and could make the appointments as he/she wants. Taking the election of leadership roles away from the public vote is not good.     

[KarenK 480]

25 minutes ago, Buster said:

The part of the proposed redistricting process that I question is the additional review to change the County Executive and County Treasurer positions to non elected positions. Does this means they would be appointed in the future by the legislators?    

Can they even do that without a public vote?

[MsKreed 1,498]

1 hour ago, Buster said:

The part of the proposed redistricting process that I question is the additional review to change the County Executive and County Treasurer positions to non elected positions. 

I saw some mention of the Chairman's "intention" or some such wording, but did not see what that was.....can someone share a link to that part please

 

1 hour ago, KarenK said:

Can they even do that without a public vote?

No. Anything that amends the Charter requires a referendum - even just drawing new district lines. 

That was one of my objections to not including public input AND the expenditure for consultants. It's a huge waste to put forth proposals that could very well fail to pass and go back and try again the following year. 

 

And they do fail to pass regularly. I'd already researched and knew the original charter took three public votes before it passed, and a quick search found the same when the Legislature presented two unacceptable redistrict plans after the 1990 census before finding one we would agree to in November 1994.

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by MsKreed

[MsKreed 1,498]

1 hour ago, MsKreed said:

I saw some mention of the Chairman's "intention" or some such wording, but did not see what that was.....can someone share a link to that part please

OK....I think I found this in the Agenda and Minutes. I'll weigh in again after I finish reading them a little closer.

[MsKreed 1,498]

Quote

The County Legislature has asked CGR to use this opportunity to consider the composition and structure of its government compared to similar counties

This was published on the Agenda, prior to the meeting. The use of past tense is a bit unsettling, as it seems to imply that an agreement had already been reached with CGR before the resolution was even presented. 

Aside from the agreement with CGR seeming arrogantly premature.....I don't actually see any reference to what changes to the "composition and structure" of Chemung County's government Manchester or the Budget Committee may be seeking or anticipating.

Was there more in the in the recording that indicates a motive or favored outcome?
 

[Chris 2,984]

Well this just got more interesting:

[Chris 2,984]

The Legislative Chair shouldn't have the power it has now, so there's no way in Hell I would support them having the power to determine who the County Executive would be. They'd be a mere figurehead at that point. 

[Kevin 426]

Imagine that a consulting group that always sides with the people that hire and pay them, who would have thought?