[You can listen in at the legislative tv link. They're on break now, but will be back any time now when the numbers get crunched.]
The Hospice team was in to do an evaluation, so I missed the first part of the meeting. I got it on about 30 minutes late.
It seems they were just finishing with Fairbanks. Holm was leading that, and I have no idea how much he changed the template that Calista and AFFER seemed to have agreed on to make him comfortable. He’s the Board member I’m least comfortable with after the way he did the Fairbanks maps last time such as putting the two city districts into two different Senate seats and after there were little fingers and protuberances that coincidentally seemed to cut out a house or two of sitting legislators or potential candidates and put them into other districts, where all of these actions tended to hurt Democrats and help Republicans. I missed the discussion today, plus since I’m listening online I can’t see the maps. Nor do I know enough about where people live to catch it right away anyhow. We’ll see how things fall.
Right now they are on break. They are deciding between the Calista Option 4 plan which leaves all five Matsu Borough districts inside Matsu (one of the basic criteria for good plans) and the AFFER #2 plan which splits the Matsu twice. They asked Eric to come up with the numbers to see whether, as I understood it, the Matsu folks would have a majority and be able to control the election. But, that doesn’t address the issue of how the interests of Valdez and the other people that would be in this district would be represented.
Below are my very rough notes. Use with caution, until the official transcripts are available.
Holm: many ways to skin a cat.
I think we took into consideration the complaints as much as we could. Now paired with another surrounding Fairbanks grouping. 3.
Torgerson: 1,2,3,4, and 5 are all within the Borough so they are SEI.
Move to Matsu:
Eric: Valdez-Chugiak - basically the two plans identical except for 6, 10 and the Matsu. Whichever way you want to go with that.
this has Calista4 except the Knik River piece.
Made some changes to Eagle river - proclamation plan, in and out. For Anchorage Bowl I just put in the Proclamation plan.
Calista? I think our ER deviation was higher.
Torgerson: Either one this would be the same?
Eric: ER boundary the same in both.
Calista, there are a few blocks that are different between the two plans, The only difference. Otherwise use the same general boundaries AFFER and Calista.
Torgerson: Overall deviation?
lowest Northwest - 2.43
highest Kodiak + ?.4
4.2 total deviation
PeggyAnn McConnochie: question???? see map again, split twice. Matsu gets split twice?
White: How many people out of Matsu in 7?
Eric: 4,000 here maybe another 4-5000 here. About ½ a district
White: Exact number?
What about Anchorage Matsu share?
Eric: About ½ about 7,000 in Anchorage
Holm: Certainly more compact this way.
Torgerson: I don’t understand this way. Dividing it twice?
Holm: yes. SEI argument that can be made, coming across the ice fields to Valdez and Cordova ??
Torgerson: We built that into the record yesterday. That’s why we got it figured out.
PeggyAnn McConnochie: Can you show the numbers part on the bottom?
Torgerson: Let’s start with Valdez. I see two options
1. divide Matsu twice
2. Chugach/Anchorage to Glenallen
Holm: I make motion to adopt the twice split Borough idea. I might make the argument that the Valdez corridor towards Fairbanks , Delta, that’s been a common grouping of folks. If you go into ER, North Anchorage, I don’t think they have much in common. Even if you argue there’s an Anchorage Valdez flight every day. Not as palatable as this one.
PeggyAnn McConnochie: I prefer this as well. Makes Valdez more in common, SEI, instead of just coming in a grabbing people out of Anchorage. More compact,
Also, Matsu likes it as well, not the only reason, but makes me feel better that Matsu wants to be split twice.
Green: Reference to AFFER and Calista, wondering difference, based on testimony, public is ok then I’m ok with it. In the process we reference to support we receive. I don’t recall what the boundaries were.
Torgerson: Calista option 4 Valdez-GlenAllen - N. Anchorage. Not the same, but came together on Option 2 revised. Wasn’t Calista’s best option, but if Board decided to divide Matsu twice, then this was how they’d prefer.
I have trouble with this. They both work. My deciding ?? dividing
60% outside and 40% Anchorage - connection of glacier and no roads. End of Knik road - two people - connected by water before. District 35 - Kodiak - over water, not hiking across glaciers. Ahtna has Cantwell and that’s a plus, maybe not a very big plus. Keeps TCC the same in all the maps. It is a tough decision though. A little worried about that pinnacle that comes into Anchorage. Read the 1992 court decision many times and they suggest a borough population should be in one, I hope that in different circumstances. Better SEI for Copper Valley.
Holm: Did I remember in 2002 they also had a Borough split twice.
Torgerson: White, you remember?
Probably didn’t come down to Fishhook, but more Sutton. This one takes more of upper valley population.
White: I’d love to see those numbers …. on this options. How many in Matsu are ???
one, two, three, four districts entirely in the Borough. then there’s ten. If Borough makes up majority, then they control this district. Courts has said no right to control, but when possible, split only one way
Torgerson: How long take to run that? I’m pretty sure.
Eric: 20 minute break
Torgerson: holy cow, how about ten?
Ok, we’ll take as long as it takes our genius to figure out.
We’ll stay on teleconference.
Break, but mike is still on
Holm: Do we want that, let them control?
10:52 Mike off.