Questions have arisen about the actions of the CRC. So I decided to see what they actually did.
California has very strict open meeting laws, which prevented commissioners from communicating with each other or the public outside of open meetings.
CRC Meeting TranscriptsJanuary 12, 2011It appears that some of the transcripts have been lost (or not restored to the CRC website). This is the first that is available.
The first 8 commissioners were chosen at random from three pools of 20 qualified Republicans, Democrats, and neither (I think all of the 20 neither were DTS/NPP since the last Libertarian and Green had been screened out earlier). These initial 8 chose the final six commissioners.
The final six had been chosen at an earlier meeting (transcript not found), but were sworn in at this January 12 meeting. During the meeting the new commissioners were appointed as a "committee" so that they could meet separately from the whole commission, and receive training on the
Bagley-Keene open meetings act (Wikipedia article).
An interesting tidbit out of the training is that you can't compel a member of the public to identify themselves, even though you must permit them to speak. The commissioners were also warned about "serial meetings" where Member A talks to Member B who talks to Member C, etc. While the meeting between A and B, and B and C are legal (so long as they are not a majority of the body) there has to be care that they are not transmitting information among all three. The trainer advised simply not meeting in smaller groups, but said that others advised to make sure that the others had not communicated with anyone else about the matter.
Items discussed by the commission must be on a posted agenda, but the public must be able to speak about items not on the agenda. This presents an interesting situation, because the commissioners can't comment on what is being said. The trainer suggested that the chair should intervene and explain that they wanted to hear what the public had to say.
I skipped the selection of chair and vice chair. After the added members were chosen, they could select a chair and vice chair. Before, as an incomplete body they had chosen an interim chair and vice chair. After a discussion about having rotating chairs, they decided to choose the interim chair and vice chair as chair and vice chair and put off rotation until later.
There was then some public input. One speaker advocated using natural features, and complained about a district that linked Marin and San Francisco. I don't know whether he was OK with Solano and Contra Costa, or whether he believed there were nine counties between Marin and San Francisco. Another favored keeping counties and cities whole (as is required by the constitution).
There was a lengthy discussion about conflicts of interest for staff. A commissioner who was a lawyer was able to go over the statutes in the Government Code, but a non-lawyer would not have picked up on the issues, and perhaps not someone who did not have experience in government law.
Finally, the commission went into executive session where they reviewed applications for an executive director. They had (apparently) set out requirements for the position. There were 29 applicants, and four were selected to be interviewed.
The proposed commission in Michigan is truly a random selection. It could become a disaster as it tries to bootstrap itself. Michigan does not have partisan voter registration, and unlike Illinois or Texas, the primary ballot selection is in secret. Yet applicants are expected to declare that they are "Republican", "Democrat", or "nonpartisan". By the wording in the law, a "Libertarian" or "Natural Law" would not be eligible. Many persons who are overtly political are not eligible.
I think the better approach is that of Colorado where the Legislative Council will draw the boundaries and act as a secretariat. The independent commission will give them direction, but the legislative council will draw the initial maps which are presented to the public for comment. I don't know whether this would work in all states. Legislative staff in some states may be every bit as partisan as the legislators themselves.
