Chemung County Legislative Redistricting Discussion

[Hal 341]

Does Mr Sweet have Turrets Syndrome or is he really that Ignorant ?! 

34 minutes ago, Adam said:

can tell you, through past conversations with other officials as well as first-hand experience with "leadership"...no other municipality wants anything to do with this once fair hamlet

Well hell … can you blame them ?! One day a big load of crap will hit the fan here in Baldwin and the surrounding Municipalities know it ! 
And I sooo want to be here to see It ! 

[Jack 67]

A Saint at this point. 

7 hours ago, Chris said:

Thank you for your continued coverage of this issue, @MsKreed!

 

[MsKreed 1,182]

9 hours ago, Hal said:

Does Mr Sweet have Turrets Syndrome or is he really that Ignorant ?! 

 

This is a fair question.....wonder if it will be raised in an upcoming podcast.

Edited March 22, 2022 by MsKreed

[MsKreed 1,182]

Follow-up.....Information from yesterday's meeting was made available on the County website today. Here are those links:

Minutes of 3/21/22 Meeting

2020 CHEMUNG COUNTY LEGISLATURE DISTRICTS DEVIATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS REPORT

Redistricting Legislative Timeline

[MsKreed 1,182]

Looking at the timeline document.....it seems illogical that the analysts expect to deliver a draft the end of this week, but discussion to set a Public Hearing won't be on a standing committee agenda until May 23rd...two months away????

[MsKreed 1,182]

On 3/22/2022 at 7:15 PM, MsKreed said:

Looking at the timeline document.....it seems illogical that the analysts expect to deliver a draft the end of this week, but discussion to set a Public Hearing won't be on a standing committee agenda until May 23rd...two months away????

The more I think about the proposed Timeline (HERE), the more it bothers me. There is over a three month lapse between the committee (this week) receiving the initial proposed draft for new district lines and a "final product" being presented for Public Hearing on July 5th. 

Three months is an appalling amount of time that allows the possibility for illegal changes that could "favor or disfavor incumbents or other particular candidates" if sitting legislators (the Committee or full Legislature) have an opportunity input or suggest changes outside public view. 

And yes...the potential for circumstances that some incumbents may find "beneficial" to themselves exists. None of them  should be able to raise objections or suggest changes if they find themselves living in the same district as another incumbent....and would like to "argue" to have a boundary moved to avoid competition. And it is entirely likely that scenario could arise. 

There are current legislators residing very close to borders between the following districts, many of which have large deviations that will require significant boundary changes:

Quote

Sweet resides near the 3-4 border (both the 3rd and 4th are greater than 10% overpopulated and need to be decreased in size)

Burin resides near the 9-7 border

Chalk resides near the 10-7 border (the 10th district is greater than 10% underpopulated and needs to be increased in size)

McCarthy and Smith reside about 3 blocks apart with the 12-14 border running between them (both the 12th and 14th are underpopulated and need to be increased in size)

Strange resides near the 13-15 border (the 13th district is almost 9% underpopulated and needs to be increased in size)

This map shows the current legislators' locations in relation to the current district boundaries (legislators who have indicated they are seeking reelection are red stars, yellow stars are those not running again)

[Chris 2,162]

I’m glad you’re able to keep track of all this and follow what’s happening. Maybe it’s because my brain is focused on other things or maybe because I’m an idiot. But it takes me a bit of extra gray matter to keep up with this.

[KarenK 383]

5 hours ago, Chris said:

I’m glad you’re able to keep track of all this and follow what’s happening. Maybe it’s because my brain is focused on other things or maybe because I’m an idiot. But it takes me a bit of extra gray matter to keep up with this.

I  have to agree and appreciate you doing this so much!

[MsKreed 1,182]

At this point, watching the process has almost become a comical reality show. The whole thing is insane, but I feel compelled to tune into just for closure.

On Tuesday, another meeting was posted on the County website for tomorrow at 10am. Although the notice says all are invited to attend, it does not specify whether public questions will be allowed:

I'm not sure what the Committee's logic could be.  To have "public" meetings with absolutely no publicity.....and taking place during work/business hours that are difficult to attend for those who do find out about it.

With that approach, it seems bizarre that they have any expectation for a plan to pass referendum whenever it is placed on a ballot.

So far, the only information that's been widely published has been news media coverage of the process and makeup of the committee being criticized by Executive Moss and Georgia Verdier of the NAACP. 

[Kevin 334]

The NYS open meetings law requires they post the notice so far in advance. So they did, unfortunately it doesn't say the time has to be convenient for the public.

[MsKreed 1,182]

9 minutes ago, Kevin said:

The NYS open meetings law requires they post the notice so far in advance. So they did, unfortunately it doesn't say the time has to be convenient for the public.

Yep....they posted this one exactly 72 hours in advance. 

I do question the "news media" requirement.....no public notice of any of the meetings have been in the paper or local news as far as I can tell. 
 

https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2018/05/open-meeting-law.pdf

Quote

 

§104. Public notice.

1. Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given or electronically transmitted to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy-two hours before such meeting.

2. Public notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be given or electronically transmitted, to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a reasonable time prior thereto.

3. The public notice provided for by this section shall not be construed to require publication as a legal notice.

4. If videoconferencing is used to conduct a meeting, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public that videoconferencing will be used, identify the locations for the meeting, and state that the public has the right to attend the meeting at any of the locations.

5. If a meeting will be streamed live over the internet, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public of the internet address of the website streaming such meeting.

6. When a public body has the ability to do so, notice of the time and place of a meeting given in accordance with subdivision one or two of this section, shall also be conspicuously posted on the public body's internet website.

 

 

[Chris 2,162]

1 hour ago, MsKreed said:

I'm not sure what the Committee's logic could be.  To have "public" meetings with absolutely no publicity.....and taking place during work/business hours that are difficult to attend for those who do find out about it.

I'm pretty sure we know what the "logic" is. 

[KarenK 383]

4 hours ago, Chris said:

I'm pretty sure we know what the "logic" is. 

Again have to wonder about that New Vision team running for office and if they realize how many commitments they are going to be required to attend during work hours. Assuming they are all so young (per their platforms) that they have day jobs.

Honestly, quite a lot of the municipalities hold regular meetings as well as committee meeting during daytime hours. 

[Kevin 334]

6 hours ago, MsKreed said:

Yep....they posted this one exactly 72 hours in advance. 

I do question the "news media" requirement.....no public notice of any of the meetings have been in the paper or local news as far as I can tell. 
 

https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2018/05/open-meeting-law.pdf

 

They probably sent the news outlets an email that was ignored. 

[KarenK 383]

It's my understanding that they generally post in the classified "legals" section. That's where we had to send our notices if I recall correctly from our town meetings.  I also think it was researched and social media was considered sufficient but don't quote me on that one.

[MsKreed 1,182]

7 hours ago, MsKreed said:

§104. Public notice.

1. Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given or electronically transmitted to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy-two hours before such meeting.

2. Public notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be given or electronically transmitted, to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a reasonable time prior thereto.

3. The public notice provided for by this section shall not be construed to require publication as a legal notice.

4. If videoconferencing is used to conduct a meeting, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public that videoconferencing will be used, identify the locations for the meeting, and state that the public has the right to attend the meeting at any of the locations.

5. If a meeting will be streamed live over the internet, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public of the internet address of the website streaming such meeting.

6. When a public body has the ability to do so, notice of the time and place of a meeting given in accordance with subdivision one or two of this section, shall also be conspicuously posted on the public body's internet website.

No Meetings have been listed in the back page "legals" ..... but Rule #3 says the public meetings are somehow "not to be construed" as a legal notice?

On the other hand, @Kevin makes a good point that there doesn't seem to be anything requiring the media to publish....just that the Legislature has to let 'em know. 

I do have to believe Press releases that include some substance/context (not just when/where, but also what/why) would be printed or aired. (Let's face it, the local news outlets have so little "news" that they should be welcoming any material that fills the void)

When Moss sent out a statement the issue, it was covered by WETM, WENY and The Star-Gazette. So if the committee/legislature shared with the media that gives a quick summary that the new state legislation will require district changes that could affect over 4,000 residents, including half of Erin, etc., and the Public is invited on "day/time" to get more information.....then more than six people might show up.

Edited March 31, 2022 by MsKreed

[Adam 373]

7 hours ago, KarenK said:

Again have to wonder about that New Vision team running for office and if they realize how many commitments they are going to be required to attend during work hours. Assuming they are all so young (per their platforms) that they have day jobs.

Honestly, quite a lot of the municipalities hold regular meetings as well as committee meeting during daytime hours. 

if im not mistaken, the majority of the day jobs seem to be "self-employed" or non-profit type so im sure many, if elected, will follow the Brennan/Baldwin-method of minimum in, maximum personal gain

[MsKreed 1,182]

For the most part, only the periodic "advisory committees" seem to be scheduled during the day. Budget, standing committees and full legislature are always evenings. 

At the public meeting March 16 (that was during business hours) a couple of legislators not on the committee (Brennan and McCarthy) attended; as far as I know neither are retired or self-employed. 

There were also three candidates in the gallery who are business owners.....so managed to arrange to be there. 

I am off tomorrow, and really hope to go again......but not sure if I will. The thought of going by myself seems to be sparking up my anxiety this week. 

[Chris 2,162]

“…there is no room for politics in redistricting.” But I’m gonna make it political anyway.

For Christ’s sake, it was a joke, Joe. I’m sure if a Republican made the joke it’d be hilarious. 

[MsKreed 1,182]

50 minutes ago, Chris said:

For Christ’s sake, it was a joke, Joe. I’m sure if a Republican made the joke it’d be hilarious. 

Sweet didn't seem to be joking when he questioned the need to consider keeping black neighborhoods intact: “Can I ask why? Why is it so important to create that?” 

I wonder how long we'll be waiting for Brennan to call out that statement?

[Hal 341]

Jokin’ Joe sure can jump on a chance to say “ told you so “ ! Jokes on You joe … You ARE the joke ! No jokin’ !! 

[Jack 67]

Would it even be possible to make 6 more districts? Its my understanding with what @MsKreed has posted about population requirements it wouldn't. 

[MsKreed 1,182]

45 minutes ago, Jack said:

Would it even be possible to make 6 more districts?

Correct...doesn't seem possible by any interpretation. The only way to accomplish that would be for the Democratic Committee to get busy persuading voters to change their registration to Democrat.

In order to increase the "democratic districts" from the the current 2 of 15 to make 8 of 15 .....there are not enough democrats in the county to constitute more than half the districts being majority dem. 

 

[MsKreed 1,182]

 Today's Meeting was somewhat productive. In addition to providing an Updated Timeline of the process, there was a relevant presentation by Tanya McGee (associate planner for Chemung County) and participation from members of the local EOP and NAACP president. 

Ms. McGee gave an overview of the history of "Red Lining" in the community (20th Century practices to keep neighborhoods 'homogenous' and restrict them from being taken over by 'undesirable' populations). Hopefully Mr. Sweet has a clearer understanding now of "Why is it so important".

There was serious discussion on the particular "community of interest" that Mr Simon from the Suny Law group had expressed concern about. One of the most concentrated Black population in the county is divided between districts 9 and 11:

There were two different schools of thought that emerged about the value of this population being moved to one district as an intact 'community' versus keeping it distributed across district lines. 

A member of the committee and a representative of the EOP both speculated that this community might be better served now by having two voices on the Legislature representing them. Mr. Simon seemed to believe that  a more unified community could have more support from a single legislator for whom they make up 35% of one district than as small 15-20% voices in two separate districts.

I think I'm inclined to believe Mr. Simon's position is based on historical and and statistical trends than the "conventional wisdom" the local participants may be relying on. But he is only offering guidance and suggestions....and will defer to the priorities that Committee gives him. 

[Chris 2,162]

 

🤦‍♂️