‘People, not politicians’ riles up Lane County
28 min read
A public hearing on the Charter Review Committee’s recommendations; many of the comments focus on a proposal submitted by the public. On June 26, two Bethel residents emphasized Lane County’s Board of Commissioners is not partisan.
[00:00:16] Tai Pruce-Zimmerman: I am Tai Pruce-Zimmerman. I live in Bethel. I’m a few minutes’ walk away from Commissioner (Pat) Farr, and ‘Thank you’ to the work of the 2021 redistricting committee, I am now also in Commissioner Farr’s district, and I want to note that those current maps that we have, in addition to making my own location make infinitely more sense than when I was somehow folded into West Lane, also gives us the board we have today, which has two Republicans, two Democrats and an independent on it and is very nicely balanced right now.
[00:00:49] Commissioner Pat Farr: The decisions that we make as an elected board, each one of us has 20% of that decision-making, and we will consider all of the testimony—I hope! I know I will—consider all of the testimony, both written and oral, and from the committee itself, as we move forward with these very important decisions, decisions that’s been pointed out will have long-term consequences.
[00:01:10] We need to take very careful deliberation as we go through this process.
[00:01:14] I’m going to consider all testimony given today and all subsequent testimony when I make my decision, ultimately that I have been elected—most recently on May 21 of this year—to make.
[00:01:25] I’m going to point something else out. There’s no majority on this board. Most of our votes are—more than 90%, probably close to 95%—are 5-0. Now occasionally there are 3-2 votes, yes, there are, and always, I’m the third vote. More than half the time, it’s me, Commissioner (Laurie) Trieger and Commissioner (Heather) Buch. Other times, it’s me, Commissioner (David) Loveall and Commissioner (Ryan) Ceniga.
[00:01:49] There’s no majority on this board. All decisions are made based upon deliberation, not by a preconceived notion of majority. So, really, anybody who’s got that on their mind, anybody who’s worried about that, ease your minds. There’s no majority on this board.
[00:02:04] Looking forward to more testimony on July 9 and beyond. Thank you.
[00:02:07] John Q: The public hearing included a request from William Gary on behalf of Stanton Long.
[00:02:12] William Gary: I’m William Gary. I’m a shareholder at Harrang Long, and I represent Stanton F. Long. On May 21, I wrote to the Board of County Commissioners and to Lane County counsel on behalf of Mr. Long, proposing that the Board refer to the voters two separate charter amendments.
[00:02:36] The first was the creation of a 15-member nonpartisan redistricting commission to draw the boundaries for the five county commission districts. The second rewrote the current language concerning the description of the districts. These were separate measures in compliance with the separate vote requirement because some people might favor one measure but oppose the other.
[00:03:08] And I know that a lot of the comments have been addressed to the one shorter measure that has been mentioned quite frequently.
[00:03:17] The proposal for an independent redistricting commission is not unique and it’s not new. It is in fact consistent with a proposal made by the League of Women Voters in February of 2019 and it is substantially similar to a current proposed state measure, Initiative Petition 14, which is supported by a broad coalition of good government organizations, including the League of Women Voters.
[00:03:48] Thank you for agreeing to consider this proposal and to receive public comment concerning it. I understand however, the county counsel has raised concerns about the legality of the measure in a secret memorandum that the commission has received from counsel, but not with me or the public generally because of the attorney-client privilege. This hardly seems like a fair process.
[00:04:17] I would respectfully request that I be given an opportunity to address county counsel’s concern. To do so, I need to know what they are.
[00:04:26] Mr. Long and I have been involved in redistricting debate for years. If there are issues with the measure as drafted, and it’s a complicated measure, we would like to work with county counsel as we have in the past to resolve those issues.
[00:04:43] Please release county counsel’s advice and give us the opportunity to address it.
[00:04:49] John Q: Five members of the Charter Review Committee spoke.
[00:04:52] Steve Cornacchia: I’m Steve Cornacchia. I served as Springfield’s County Commissioner and as a member of your Charter Review Committee.
[00:04:59] I would like to alter my testimony to lend my support for your consideration of placing the citizen-produced redistricting proposal before the voters. Mr. Gary and Mr. Long submitted a redistricting proposal that (staff liaison) Jenna (Cusimano) provided to each of us on the committee. I have known these men for my entire professional life, and have ultimate respect for both of them
[00:05:22] Many folks in this community know that I’m a retired Green Beret, and that I live a Green Beret’s life of service, leadership, integrity, and honor. Bill and Stan are my kind of people. They are honorable men who apparently sincerely believe that redistricting in Lane County attracts characters who would attempt to affect elections and that keeping them out of redistricting and the redistricting process is essential to the community. Their proposal would ban all insiders, players, operatives, and politicians from participating.
[00:06:01] Commissioner Laurie Trieger: Next up is Morgan Munro.
[00:06:03] Morgan Munro: I want to really encourage the commissioners to consider moving the recommendations from the Charter Review Committee to the ballot for the voters to decide. I wonder why the commissioners are so drawn to Mr. Long’s last-minute end run around our committee.
[00:06:18] I’m really concerned that his end run around our committee will open the county again to serious lawsuits, will waste vital resources that we don’t have to waste in partisan redistricting, yet again on a whim, instead of because of census data. And would enshrine into our charter items that will not stand the test of time. And our charter and our community deserve a charter that stands the test of time.
[00:06:46] Jenny Jonak: My name is Jenny Jonak and I have served for over a year on the Lane County Charter Review Committee as its only BIPOC member. I have serious concerns about the Long proposal because it would create barriers for community members who are BIPOC, youth, or have disabilities.
[00:07:04] Instead of the Independent Redistricting Commission, which allows anyone living in Lane County to serve, Long’s proposal would require members to:
- Be registered to vote, not just live in Lane County.
- Have been registered to vote for at least three years prior to applying.
- Have voted in two of the three most recent general elections. And
- Not be an employee or related to an employee of the county or any government offices for the past four years.
[00:07:34] The impact of these barriers is that we would be less likely to have committee members of color.
[00:07:45] In Oregon and across the nation, fair and independent redistricting is essential for making sure that our democracy operates fairly by creating barriers for Black, Indigenous, BIPOC, youth, and disabled voters. This would disenfranchise them.
[00:07:59] I urge each of you to remember in 2022 when the Lane County commissioners promised that they would apply Lane County’s equity lens to their work. That lens seeks to remove systemic barriers and promote inclusion.
[00:08:15] This proposal would create more barriers for our historically underserved and marginalized community members. It would disenfranchise the community members we promised to center in our decision-making. I ask each of you commissioners to center equity in your work and reject this proposal.
[00:08:34] Stefan Ostrach: My name is Stefan Ostrach. I had the privilege and honor of serving on both the redistricting committee and the Charter Review Committee and I stand before you asking that you submit all of the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee to the voters as drafted by the Charter Review Committee and reject the last-minute submission from Harrang Long, which as has already been pointed out, was way outside the process and way late to the game.
[00:09:05] What’s really going on here is a stealth gerrymandering. By arbitrarily designating Roosevelt Boulevard as the boundary between North and South Eugene districts, it would do exactly the opposite of what it purports to do.
[00:09:21] Roosevelt Boulevard is not the boundary of any school district, ward, school catchment area, or neighborhood. Roosevelt Boulevard as a boundary would split the North Eugene High School catchment area. Roosevelt Boulevard would split the Bethel School District. Roosevelt Boulevard would split multiple Eugene city wards. Roosevelt Boulevard would split established neighborhoods.
[00:09:43] The only thing Roosevelt Boulevard would do would be to ensure that the two areas of Eugene that are thought to be liberal and progressive would be in the same district. And worst of all, it would split census tracts. The whole process is based on a jigsaw puzzle using census tracts and Roosevelt Boulevard has no relation to any census tract.
[00:10:05] Jeremy Sherer: My name is Jeremy Sherer, and I served on the Charter Review Committee. Not really here to discuss the merits of the proposals, but to step back and look at the big picture.
[00:10:16] John Adams is once quoted as saying, ‘We ought to consider what is the end of government before we determine which is the best form.’
[00:10:25] Home rule is how we are constituted. As a progressive document, amending the charter is changing its form. In the discussions about amending the charter, we have not asked the primary question: How should we be governed? As far as I know, we haven’t had this discussion. This debate will make more sense once we agree on the desired ends. Knowing the ends will help us determine whether to keep the status quo or to change our form or structure.
[00:10:55] There are three questions I’d like us to consider in this policy debate. Is there a problem? What is the harm? Is the structural policy change necessary? Finally, will the change solve the problem? In other words, does the help help?
[00:11:10] What if we amend our charter with one of these proposals, choose one, and it turns out to be a disaster? Who will be responsible for those problems? The public? The commissioners? Certainly not the committee.
[00:11:25] District lines are political lines and should be determined through a transparent political process with public debate and accountability. A charter amendment is inflexible and to change it would be long and tedious. Keeping the status quo is flexible because it can be changed, and we can hold our elected officials accountable to their decisions. Establishing political lines is messy, challenging, and sometimes confusing, but that doesn’t constitute a harm.
[00:11:56] Without a clear mandate, it’s hard to find a harm in the status quo. Even if there is a harm, the untested cure could be worse than the disease. There’s no reason to change the status quo without more thought towards the ends and more public debate. I recommend the status quo.
[00:12:14] John Q: The League of Women Voters offered a statement.
[00:12:17] Charlcie Kaylor: I’m Charlcie Kaylor… The League of Women Voters of Lane County restates its support of the county charter amendments recommended by the Charter Review Committee.
[00:12:26] Specifically, these include the section that revises the title and description of commissioner districts following the May 7 board discussion. The League acknowledges the two Eugene-area districts should not be described identically.
[00:12:40] …The League of Women Voters of the United States, of Oregon, and of Lane County are committed to redistricting processes where the people, not the politicians, make redistricting decisions.
[00:12:51] Commission decisions on redistricting and charter changes should, of course, be made with transparency and continuous opportunity for public engagement, particularly because those decisions are just once a decade.
[00:13:07] The League also supports the Charter Review Committee’s recommendation to repeal Sections 33, 34, 35. No purpose is served by retaining obsolete language in modern charter.
[00:13:20] Should the commission move forward to refer these charter amendments to the voters, the League will be ready to include unbiased information about the proposed changes through its voter service activities.
[00:13:32] John Q: Redistricting affects other local governments.
[00:13:35] Austin Folnagy: My name is Austin Folnagy. I want to just also state and remind that there’s other local governments that rely on how the county redistricts and makes their districts. Lane Community College, for instance, we actually delayed our redistricting process waiting for the county’s redistricting maps. So, I just wanted to state that, you know, this isn’t just a redistricting process for Lane County, but it also impacts other local governments. And I want that to be front of mind when you make these decisions in regards to everything you’re looking at today.
[00:14:04] John Q: Several speakers opposed either the ideas from Stan Long, or the process.
[00:14:09] Nancy Mills: My name is Nancy Mills and I’m concerned about the letter from Stan Long that was submitted to be considered for possible referral to the ballot. I’m also concerned about the amendment that’s suggested in that letter, which changes the boundaries of districts without input and also ignores the recommendation that districts be given names. The impropriety of suggesting a map without public comment is self-evident.
[00:14:37] Joy Marshall: My name is Joy Marshall. I’m very concerned about what I see as an undemocratic effort to undo our election voting boundaries. Out of the blue on May 24, this letter appears, and from a local lawyer. The time to do that was two years ago when we all were getting the input. And suddenly one person can come in and do an end run around that robust political process. I think that that is not transparent. And there is no legitimate reason to undo our current maps. I hope that you will not proceed with this 11th-hour attempt to circumvent the democratic process and all that hard work of that committee.
[00:15:15] Debra McGee: My name is Debra McGee. I have a high degree of mistrust about: Why now? Why, when there is a conservative majority, do you suddenly want to go outside of established procedure of the Charter Review Committee process and accept the plan of one citizen? Smells rotten to me, commissioners. It’s a rotten smell on you. You want to go around the established procedure and do what some local lawyer put up. Take the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee process, make it fair, follow the rules, do the right thing.
[00:15:50] Patty Hine: My name is Patty Hine. I would like to voice my support for the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee and to voice my opposition to the proposals made by Mr. Stan Long. A last-minute partisan unvetted proposal around redistricting smacks of gerrymandering, a political tool long used to disenfranchise voters. I smell a rat.
[00:16:15] Tai Pruce-Zimmerman: I am Tai Pruce-Zimmerman. I do appreciate the intent, the idea of reviewing the process of how our independent redistricting committee works and trying to increase independence. I’m in favor of trying to find measures and exploring that possibility. I don’t feel like what I’ve read here is quite there yet. I think this needs more work. We’re looking to keep people that have deep partisan interests out and include people that are more independent. But I don’t know that as written, it fully captures that.
[00:16:52] It blocks out elected officials if they receive compensation. But it would, for example, allow someone on a school board or in a fire district to still participate as written. However, it blocks out people that have worked on campaigns, regardless of whether that candidate receives compensation.
[00:17:12] So, for example, I volunteered on a friend’s school board campaign. That is the only campaign I have ever worked for. And the way I read this, that made me ineligible for the charter committee, but he, as an elected official, having won that race, is still eligible. So that’s a piece that I think could be cleaned up dramatically, and there’s a whole lot of those.
[00:17:31] Larry Koenigsberg: I go by Larry Koenigsberg… What I don’t like is the idea of setting up these districts so as to favor a particular group or a particular county commissioner. To me, it smacks of gerrymandering. It smacks of the commissioners, the current majority on the commission, choosing their voters because they are fearful of having to face a wider set of voters.
[00:18:00] So my request to you, now that the three members on the commission form a majority: Don’t drive this process like you stole it. Let it go the way it was intended when the independent redistricting commission set it up.
[00:18:21] Commissioner Laurie Trieger: Next up is Isaac Judd.
[00:18:23] Isaac Judd: I really encourage us to honor the committee’s work that they went through in that process. It’s a long process for people to go through, and I think it’s really important that we honor that process and look at those recommendations only. And the outside things coming through in a separate process just doesn’t seem to honor the spirit of transparency that we’re looking to encourage in Lane County. So I just ask you to look at the committee’s work and move those forward.
[00:18:49] Claire Syrett: My name is Claire Syrett. I’m here to speak in support of this board standing by the transparent and citizen-informed recommendations put forward by the Charter Review Committee for simple and practical charter amendments rather than putting forward a set of radical and unvetted suggestions made by a single private citizen in the 11th hour.
[00:19:10] To throw over this committee’s recommendations in favor of a set of recommendations that have not been subject to similar public scrutiny is not good governance and will undermine the voters’ trust in both this body and the process going forward.
[00:19:26] I call upon this board, and in particular my county commissioner, Commissioner (Pat) Farr, to honor the transparent and thoughtful process this board initiated with the charter review and move those recommendations forward to the public for a vote.
[00:19:39] Beverly Barr: I’m Beverly Barr. I’m here to urge you to approve the referral to the voters of the work of the six amendments of the charter. I’m also here to urge you to set aside for now the Harrang Long letter that was dated May 23 and sent to the commissioners. It’s an end run, it’s an 11th hour thing, and as other people have said, it was not public process.
[00:20:10] It’s a sneaky way to try to redo the already-approved redistricting work of the independent redistricting committee that was based on the 2020 census.
[00:20:23] David Fedanque: My name is David Fedanque and I was a reporter for KEZI-TV when the five commissioner districts were originally set up by the commission. And I’m appearing today because I’ve got many concerns about the proposal that was put forward by Messrs. Gary and Long.
[00:20:47] One of the provisions of that proposal, I think, will create a lot of mischief, and it is the provision for removing members of the redistricting commission. It allows a petition by any resident of Lane County in Circuit Court to remove one or more members of the commission.
[00:21:09] After I gave up being a news reporter, I had a number of jobs, one of which, I worked for the American Civil Liberties Union here in Oregon for 33 years. So I’m very familiar with the concept of ‘one person, one vote…’
Having a line at Roosevelt Boulevard does not conform to census tracts, which is the only way you can make the districts equal in population. Please do not move forward with that proposal at this time.
[00:21:43] Julie Parker: My name is Julie Parker. I live in South Eugene after having lived in Cottage Grove for 18 years and I appreciate the opportunity to speak here. Also appreciate the fact that public comment has been extended till July 9.
[00:21:56] I won’t rehash through the many good comments made so far, especially those on transparency, which our county government should be based upon. I am, of course, as many of us here are, here to oppose the Stan Long letter, the proposal.
[00:22:12] I don’t understand why now this has come up, and in addition to the transparency, it seems to me that if we’re going to jump ahead the process, there should be a really good reason like a pandemic or something like that. But here it is, just popped up, and I do not understand the justification. I’ve done some reading on this and I cannot find it.
[00:22:34] The last thing I’ll focus on, is the financial aspects of this. Morgan (Munro) commented and another speaker on the legal challenges, which would be imminent in my opinion.
[00:22:45] And furthermore, the cost of redrawing the maps, again, would be expensive. The commissioners have a fiduciary obligation to spend the money of the county wisely, use our tax dollars at work, so please take that into account as you make this decision, and if you’re going to incur additional expenses, please make sure they are important and merited, and I do not see that here.
[00:23:08] Timothy Morris: For the record, my name is Timothy Morris. I will be brief. The Harrang Long proposal for charter amendments is disastrous to public trust and our democracy. If memory serves, your first public comment about redistricting was Dec. 3, 2020. Where was Mr. Long then? Why has it taken nearly four years for him to provide public comment? Your public process brought out a independent review committee made up of 15 residents with a very long resume of knowledge and expertise.
[00:23:36] Nearly four years of discussion with experts and community members holds absolutely no candle to a private map drawn by an unknown amount of people submitted at the last minute. Rushing or altering the process of redistricting without any sound justification will compromise our community’s trust in this body.
[00:23:56] It will subvert the will of the voters and it will bring harm to an entire county. Democracy will not die in darkness.
[00:24:03] Debra Higby: I’m Debra Higby and I have concerns regarding the proposed last-minute changes as most people here testified. The last-minute plan has received none of the public attention, review and scrutiny that is needed and that is warranted, given such potentially far-reaching changes. The changes have not been subjected to a formal analysis and further, the proposal would make changes that can potentially influence who gets elected to the county commission.
[00:24:32] I further oppose the proposal to reset the redistricting committee for 2025. This proposal undermines our democracy and the independent redistricting process established in 2021. If the last-minute changes are allowed, please provide an explanation whether the allegation is true that this will allow gerrymandering which favors one party over another.
[00:24:52] Scott Bartlett: My name is Scott Bartlett. I remember being on a redistricting committee in 2001 or 2011, and in the course of that I was trying to design maps for a prospective redistricting scenario. And the person, a very fine person who was helping me, said, ‘Hey, Scott, if you move this number down, if you move this line down right here, east, you can add 12,000 more Democrats to this district.’
[00:25:24] And I immediately felt uneasy about it, just instinctively. And I rejected it. And what I was thinking is, that the people out there don’t think about redistricting by and large, they don’t know anything about it, but they trust us to do something that’s honorable and fair and balanced.
[00:25:43] There are many ways that you can manipulate the field of applicants to be on this redistricting committee. There are flaws in this. And the fact is if you precipitously go through it, you could have unanticipated consequences.
[00:26:00] I was an aide to Wayne Morse and I remember that Wayne Morse said to me and to other people, ‘Your substantive rights are no greater than your procedural rights.’
And I understand that there seems to be a sense of urgency, about implementing this, perhaps it’s to impact the 2026 election.
[00:26:22] but I just say this, be honorable and be fair. I don’t mean to be condescending in saying this to you. But there is a law of cause and effect and I’d be careful about violating that.
[00:26:38] Lauri Segel: My name is Lauri Segel. Today I’m speaking on behalf of LandWatch Lane County, who is in support of the Charter Review Committee’s proposal. We believe that amending the charter and redistricting should both be processes in which the county residents, rather than elected politicians, make redistricting decisions.
[00:26:58] Redistricting and amending the charter should be done with transparency, as others have said, and should provide ample opportunity for public participation. We believe that the Charter Review Committee provided a transparent process with ample opportunity for public participation.
[00:27:15] There certainly are legal issues with Mr. Long’s proposal doing a mid-decennial redistricting… that Mr. Long and his attorney must certainly understand. Secondly, there hasn’t been any problem described that would require establishing a new baseline suggested by one person for the commissioner districts. I didn’t hear one articulated by Mr. Long’s attorney this morning and I haven’t seen one in the record.
[00:27:48] The citizens of Lane County deserve better than a special interest approach to charter amendments and redistricting and LandWatch requests that you support the redistricting committee’s proposal.
[00:27:59] Jim Babson: This is Jim Babson. I’d like to again remind everyone listening of the events surrounding the redistricting process of 2011.
[00:28:07] In conjunction with the 10-year U.S., the redistricting task force at the time did what was required of them and presented the board with several redistricting maps for their consideration.
[00:28:21] In the 11th hour, then Commissioner (Jay) Bozievich introduced his own map, which strategically moved the Whiteaker neighborhood from North Eugene into South Eugene.
[00:28:31] This map was then adopted by Commissioner Bozievich and his allies on the board. Not only was this a blatant and obvious gerrymander, but it was a real slap in the face to the redistricting committee, having all their hard work ignored.
[00:28:46] It makes you wonder why anyone would put in all the time and effort to serve on a citizens advisory committee when all their hard work might be completely disregarded by the commissioners.
[00:28:57] I hope the current board doesn’t disrespect the Charter Review Committee in the same way by bypassing their recommendations in favor of some politically-motivated alternative charter amendments.
[00:29:09] John Q: Many also spoke in support of the new proposal.
[00:29:12] Duncan Murray: My name is Duncan Murray. The legitimacy of any government rests upon the public believing three things about it: First, that its processes are transparent; then, that it honestly describes and its decision making; and finally, and maybe most important, is that it understands that it is voters who select a government, not the other way around.
[00:29:39] The so-called Independent Redistricting Commission of 2021 cuts across most, if not all, of these standards of good governance. First, it’s structured to ensure the re-election of County Commissioners. The County Commission appoints 5 members, who in turn appoint another 10 members. We can do better than that, and the proposed IRC does just that.
[00:30:06] The members are chosen by lot, randomly, from a pool of volunteers for the positions. Then there are standards, high standards of ethics and conflicts of interest, which are imposed on these members. And finally, each county commission district is represented equally.
[00:30:28] So I hope that you join me in wanting and believing that the Lane County voters and all citizens deserve a truly independent redistricting commission that is not influenced by the wishes or desires of county commissioners who are trying to advance their own political agendas. If you do agree with me on that principle, please, please refer this proposal to the public for this final verdict on it.
[00:31:00] Victoria Krautsack: Hello, my name is Victoria Krautsack. Regarding revision of district name descriptors, I prefer the name as it is in the charter right now, a number and geographic name. I know I’m not alone in this. Just last year two separate surveys conducted by your Charter Review Committee showed that a majority felt the same way.
[00:31:17] And if for some reason it is imperative to have only one descriptor, I’d go for the geographic name. It’s more transparent. And perhaps that transparency will help curb or even prevent gerrymandering. With just a number, gerrymandering attempts are less conspicuous.
[00:31:30] And as gerrymandering continues, the potential for every district to be represented by someone from Eugene is very real. How would that be equal protection under the law if, for example, your elected representative cannot understand or empathize with the challenges of a rural community?
[00:31:44] Point two, I think having an independent redistricting committee is a good idea if the emphasis is on independent. However, I question how independent the committee is when the commissioners get to pick the first five who in turn pick the next ten and three alternates. How many donors and significant others, lobbyists or politicians, will wind up on the committee? How independent will it really be? Are there mechanisms in place to vet this and make sure it doesn’t happen? I don’t know, but I doubt it.
[00:32:11] What I do know is that there is a proposal that incorporates conflict of interest checks on applicants. It also recommends revising the redistricting process, but instead of the IRC, it establishes the CRC, the Citizens Redistricting Commission in the charter.
[00:32:26] Our country, state, counties need more grassroots, more citizen involvement. We need our elected officials to lead us more and rule over us less. More of our governance needs to be driven by ‘We the people,’ or as my commissioner, Commissioner Ceniga said it, ‘People, not politicians.’ I ask you to please give the Bill Gary – Harrang Long proposal fair and serious consideration.
[00:32:49] Gabrielle Guidero: My name is Gabrielle Guidero, and I would like to urge you to not move the charter amendments to the ballot. It’s expensive, not necessary, and doesn’t contain anything imminent. At a time when budgets are tight, it seems irresponsible to spend that much money putting something towards a ballot.
[00:33:11] I know you have respect for your committee, but just because they put the time and energy into it, doesn’t require it to go to the ballot.
[00:33:20] Tiffany Monroe: My name is Tiffany Monroe and I’m speaking to you on behalf of Lane Families for Farms and Forests. We’re an organization that supports the rich heritage of ag and forestry, two cornerstones of Lane County in our local community.
[00:33:33] We’d like to draw attention to the recommendation of revising the redistricting process and establishing an independent redistricting process. In 2021, Lane Families for Farms and Forests commented on this and we appreciate the opportunity to engage this time around.
[00:33:49] Recently, the Board of Commissioners received six recommendations by the Charter Review Committee, and two that were proposed by Commissioner Ryan Ceniga. Due to the lack of public input in the proposal generation process, we would like to express appreciation to Commissioner Ceniga for providing additional amendments to be considered that allow for additional public input on this matter.
[00:34:11] We will add that the citizens redistricting recommendation submitted by Stan Long was not randomly developed. It is based upon a proposal by People Not Politicians in response to the state of Oregon receiving an F by the Princeton Review on our redistricting process around the state.
[00:34:29] This method was supported by Chambers of Commerce, League of Women Voters, and the Eugene Springfield NAACP—a broad array of folks that don’t always typically align, that is based upon something that people want to see. And so we would like for you to consider that.
[00:34:46] But most importantly, Lane Families for Farms and Forests supports the forming of an independent redistricting process that holds true to the intention of being separate and independent from elected officials, preventing them from securing future elections.
[00:35:01] We are particularly concerned about the recommendations made by the Charter Review Committee as it incorporates process and mechanisms to allow elected officials to control outcomes. These include being listed in the Lane Code, which can change at any time; the selection process of members, as well as the appointment process; and the commissioners eventually selecting the final maps. This all is a biased process that allows county commissioners to control.
[00:35:27] We would ask for you to protect the voice and desires of the people of Lane County. We kindly request that you seek an ethical redistricting process that limits elected officials’ control, creates equal representation of districts, and screens for conflicts of interest.
[00:35:42] Staci Holt: My name is Staci Holt. I testified to this board in 2021 about the corruption in our independent redistricting committee at that time. The committee had a political consultant who drew maps that were beneficial to his prior client. This was wrong then, and I wonder why this body wants the public to approve their process in 2021.
[00:36:01] Voters are smart. They will learn more about the process and vote the CRC approval down. Nearly all voters believe this is, there is corruption throughout our government. These kinds of actions only add to these perceptions. Suppose we are ever to evolve and improve our government processes. In that case, we must put strict conflict of interest checks on committees like these, or at the very least elected officials like yourself, who just need to do the work and be transparent about your intentions.
[00:36:29] The removal of the district names is not just a procedural change, it’s a potential gateway to gerrymandering. If the districts have no names, they can be shaped to serve specific interests.
[00:36:39] Furthermore, the proposal not only removes the names, but also loosens the descriptions of the districts, making it even easier to manipulate. Though not highlighted in the board material, this aspect is crucial, and I quote, ‘but also including contiguous portions of the county as necessary to comply with subsection D. ‘.
[00:37:01] The last IRC produced commissioner districts where all commissioners could be elected from the city of Eugene. And these two charter amendments would open the door for more of this.
[00:37:12] For those reasons, I am opposed to the Charter Review Committee amendments. As stewards of Lane County, I encourage you to think carefully about how you are spending our money and how you are representing us. Too often in recent years, I’ve seen this body vote against the majority opinion of public comments. I’m hoping to see that change now and going forward.
[00:37:32] Cheryl Crumbley: My name is Cheryl Crumbley. My comments today are directed primarily to my commissioner, Pat Farr. Commissioner Farr, you and I have crossed paths many times through the years, and I know your reputation is very important to you.
[00:37:47] Therefore, I’m disappointed and, and actually really concerned that you are now involved in a clearly last-minute deal to allow a redistricting proposal to proceed outside the established transparent review process. Why, oh, why Commissioner, would you involve yourself in this? Please, I urge you, Commissioner Farr, to support the redistricting plan that has been vetted and approved by the 15-member independent redistricting committee.
[00:38:17] And as a previous speaker mentioned, it’s going to be harder and harder to get citizens to participate when they see that their efforts are just going to be overridden. So please, Commissioner Farr, please do not involve yourself in anything but legal, transparent and aboveboard political dealings. Please don’t violate the trust of your constituents and future voters. Your reputation could be permanently scarred and maybe even destroyed.
[00:38:45] If you are not able to participate in a way that we haven’t really hired you to do so, please back away from this effort to manipulate voter districts and allow the citizens’ work to go forward to the citizens for a vote.
[00:39:00] Jennifer Wagner: My name is Jennifer Wagner, and I am actually here to testify about the independent redistricting committee amendment proposed by the Charter Review Committee. I served on the 2021 Independent Redistricting Committee, which is what this amendment is obviously modeled after.
[00:39:17] My experience of this amendment in practice wasn’t independent, but it was full of partisan political actors and was highly controversial. There are better ways to conduct truly independent redistricting. Let me explain. First, the membership, the setup and process of this committee were similar to other committees that government bodies set up: Five handpicked appointees from the commissioners, and then those five appointees selected 10 more members.
[00:39:44] So right from the start the commissioners select a majority of the members or individuals to serve.
[00:39:51] Next, checking the interest. The committee members had a minimal review of potential conflicts of interest. We were required to fill out an application in a form that disclosed any financial conflicts to serving on the committee, but that was it. There were no guidelines on who shouldn’t or should or could participate if we wanted a truly independent committee.
[00:40:13] For those who participated, several questionable aspects of the participants history and relationships to the county would question their impartiality of independence. Here’s some examples. Multiple people had received financial benefits from a county commissioner or their campaign within the previous five years. There were county employees. There were current and previously elected officials. Lobbyists, local political contributors, and a married couple. Virtually everyone on the committee had some political history.
[00:40:44] And this includes myself. I’ve worked on political campaigns for many years, but more recently have been more involved with our family business. I’d like to point out as well that I believe that under the 2021 IRC setup, a direct family member of a commissioner could have participated.
[00:41:02] Next, the final say: Finally, after all the maps were drawn, the IRC voted on maps to forward to the Board of Commissioners. Again, this was not independent of the elected commissioners.
[00:41:14] Recommendations: This process needed to be more random to ensure commissioners could not select the people they wanted.
[00:41:21] Nora Morgan: My name is Nora Morgan and I, everyone has said it so much better than me, I just want to say, please do what is best for the people of Lane County, do your job. Thank you.
[00:41:35] John Q: Commissioners consider changes to the Lane County charter, which has been called the county’s constitution. A charter review committee proposed revising three sections and repealing three. As commissioners consider what to send to voters for their consideration, more proposals are coming forward.
[00:41:53] Commissioner Laurie Trieger: I will just use my time to again appreciate everyone. I was keeping careful track and one thing that I was really struck by was we really did have representation speaking today from all of our districts, and from all points of view.
[00:42:04] I will just say the question before us is ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to refer any or all recommendations that have come to us to the voters who will ultimately decide.
[00:42:13] And the recommendations have come to us, some through a very clear and thorough and vetted process which was our committee and some have come to us from the public, whether that is the letter from an attorney that one commissioner tried to advance to the same level as the committee and instead was folded in to general public comment, where it sits along with some other recommendations that we had in written and testimony today around considering watersheds as borders. We got written testimony considering term limits. We’ve received lots of recommendations for potential amendments to the charter.
[00:42:24] And so ultimately what this body is tasked with doing, is deciding yes or no to refer anything to the voters, and if so, which things, and then we can have a debate about what was the process that got us there. That will happen in subsequent meetings, not today.
[00:43:02] And I just want to also reflect on what Commissioner Farr said about whether there is a majority on this board. I think it’s important to note that one thing we are all unified in is we’re all here and we all ran because we want to do what’s best for the county. We want to represent our districts, but that our decisions are on behalf of the entire county.
[00:43:21] John Q: A second public hearing is proposed for Tuesday, July 9.
