BOCC Makes Last Second Flip on District Maps

MANATEE – In what was perhaps the most contentious discussion yet concerning the redistricting of Manatee County Commission boundaries, commissioners voted to replace a previously-selected draft redistricting map with a revised version during a land use meeting Thursday.

Instead of working together to "tweak" or revise the previously agreed upon draft maps selected during a November 16 meeting, the discussion–which is perhaps better described as a public dispute–included accusations of ulterior motives and criticisms over perceived disregard for prior decisions made by the board, and a lack of transparency.

Much of the contention arose from the introduction of a "compromise map" presented as a replacement for Map B–the draft map submitted by Commissioner Vanessa Baugh.

Less than 24 hours before the start of the meeting, the agenda was updated to include two commissioner items. One item, requested to be added by Commissioner Misty Servia, was to open discussion with the board whether the majority thought they should request consultant analysis of the school board's redistricting map to determine whether it offered considerations in their own redistricting process. The suggestion did not receive the support of any members.

The updated agenda also included an added item by Commissioner George Kruse. Kruse sought to bring forward a "compromise" draft map which he created with input from the county’s redistricting consultant, John Guthrie. The compromise map was drafted based on proposals of Map B but included several revisions.

Commissioner Geroge Kruse's compromise draft redistricting map, Map C

Kruse explained that County Administrator Scott Hopes had encouraged him to take the aspects of each draft map Kruse found agreeable and, using the input received from the public, seek additional guidance from the redistricting consultant to draft his own map–as a compromise to Map B–to bring back to the board for consideration.

While modifications and revisions to both previously selected maps (Maps A1 and B) were anticipated, some on the board did not anticipate that the process would be done independently of one another, outside of a public meeting–or as intended replacements of either previously selected draft map.

Kruse explained that in revising Map B, one consideration was to divide the county’s two city seats–the cities of Palmetto and Bradenton–into separate districts. Both cities currently reside within District 2.

"We have two major city seats here," Kruse said. "Right now, we have one district commissioner, who is doing an excellent job, but he's responsible for two city seats and his single district. That's extending one district commissioner extensively, and we are trying to focus on the urban core. We are talking about moving development more downtown with less urban sprawl."

Kruse also sought to address other issues identified in draft Map B. One such issue addressed was the re-balancing of the rapidly growing populations of Districts 1 and 5. Map B failed to adequately adjust population deviations for District 5 with consideration of anticipated future growth. (You can read more about that here.)

Kruse’s draft map, however, failed to bring more coastal lands into the same district together to the degree the consultant’s draft Map A1 had accomplished. In Kruse's draft, a significant portion of District 3's southern coastal boundary is redrawn into District 4, a proposed boundary change also included on Map B. Despite that shortfall, Kruse contended that his map offered "cleaner" district boundary lines than either the consultant’s draft A1 or Baugh’s draft B.

Commissioner Carol Whitmore appeared dissatisfied with the process however, "Rules are rules" she said, "I found out about this at 5:10 p.m. last night." She held up printed versions of the draft maps the board had previously agreed upon. "My staff and I personally delivered these to 44 organizations, with a copy of the Constitution and state laws. It explained what we are doing and how they can contact their commissioners with questions.“

Whitmore expressed concern that the decided upon draft maps had already been posted online for public review as well as placed on display in county libraries.

"I appreciate your hard work, Commissioner Kruse,“ Whitmore said, "but you are the strongest proponent of how once we decide something, we don’t just go and change that.“

Commissioner Servia and Kruse addressed the matter of the agenda being amended to include their requested items the evening before the scheduled meeting, both stating they had communicated their requests well before the items were officially added to the agenda. Servia suggested agenda procedures be reviewed and improved to avoid any future late notices to the public.

Commissioner Servia also agreed with Whitmore’s expression of dislike concerning the board’s having decided on two draft maps to work from going forward and the introduction of Kruse’s last-minute additional draft for consideration.

"I have already held three town hall meetings with a fourth scheduled for next week," said Servia. "I’ve spoken with a lot of people and explained we have the two maps subject to adjustments."

Servia added, "I have explained to people that the chosen maps were going to be tweaked and adjusted in our December 14 meeting, right there, in a public meeting where everyone would have the opportunity to participate. Because the most important thing is public participation."

Servia explained the late addition of a new draft map into a land-use meeting was in her view, "blocking out the public" and not "honoring the process."

However, Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge pointed out what he called "hypocrisy" in Servia’s criticism of Kruse presenting a compromise map at "late notice" when Servia herself intended to propose the school district’s map for consideration.

"I only intended to raise the discussion because I have heard specific questions from the public at my town halls asking why the board was not drafting a map that matched the school board's districts,“ Servia explained, "I didn’t know the answer to that, I haven’t analyzed the school board’s maps, so I thought I would bring that to the board for discussion.“

She went on to further explain that it was her understanding that any revisions that were to be made to the two maps the board had selected would be revisions made collectively by the board and in public view.

Concerning the specific adjustments that Kruse included in his map, Servia disagreed with Kruse's opinion that the two cities, within the urban core, should be divided between separate districts.

"The urban core is the urban core for a reason,“ Servia said, "If we divide the cities, we lose consistency.“

Commissioner Reggie Bellamy seemed equally frustrated by the late addition of a compromise map.

"We say that we’re going to do something and we’re constantly changing that,“ Bellamy said. "In a previous meeting, we said, Ôwe’re going to lock in these two maps.’ Everybody up here agreed to that.“

Bellamy went on to illustrate his contemplation of the political dynamics among the board.

"We’re hypocritical, deceiving, mendacious individuals up here. I say that because we continuously say things we are going to do, and then we change them in the ninth hour.“

Kruse pushed back on Bellamy’s understanding that the board had "locked-in“ two draft maps.

"I thought the intention was to look at various maps, get input from people, and then put maps together that make the most sense," said Kruse. "We are trying to create a good map for the next 10 years, we can't just say Ôwell these were locked in last week, so sorry if they are bad maps for a decade.’"

While Bellamy did agree there were some improvements which he appreciated on Kruse’s proposed compromise map–such as improved equalization of district populations and better consideration of future growth–he agreed with Commissioner Servia that dividing the urban core among more than one district made little practical or logistical sense in his opinion.

The time certain discussion continued for approximately three hours, with the conversation frequently revealing personal feelings of distrust among the members.

"If we are all being really honest, if all seven of us are really being honest,“ Servia said, "there really is one special interest that is driving this É Commissioner Baugh’s map wasn’t getting support and so there is an effort to correct some of those problems to make sure we could get the support of something other than the consultant’s map.“

In the previous November meeting, Servia expressed distrust of draft Map B because she said it drew in a potential challenger to her district seat which is up for election next year. She expressed her belief that Baugh– who claims to have single-handedly drawn the draft map–exercised political motivations when doing so.

Commissioner Bellamy, recalling a recent interaction he witnessed a day before the meeting in an elevator, described an impression he got having witnessed the interaction. Bellamy told the board he anticipated something was coming, something he described as "more bull crap".

"Why would a recommendation (to draft a compromise map) come from a county administrator? Maybe that's his job? Not sure I like that approach." Bellamy said.

Even basic matters of meeting procedure grew contentious with one commissioner making a motion for the board to follow its meeting procedures, a motion that was seconded and passed.

Chairman Baugh's tone sometimes became condescending toward her peers as she became visibly frustrated with the long debate. "I just don't understand why some of you talk about not wanting politics up here, you are doing it yourselves," Baugh said. "You are the ones doing the politicking up here.“

At one point Commissioner Whitmore asked Baugh to confirm that she had drawn her draft map without the assistance of anyone else, a question that Commissioner Baugh took offense to. "I worked on it all weekend. I’m not going to go into major detail with you on this, I’m pretty fed up with the whole process.“ Baugh snapped. "I don’t like being called a liar, Commissioner Whitmore.“

"I didn’t call you a liar,“ replied Whitmore. "I asked you a question and you answered.“

During his comments Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge was favorable to Kruse’s compromise map, explaining that while some may feel there is "special interest influence“ or ulterior motives, the reality is–in his perspective–"The whole thing is special interest, and special interest isn’t always bad. Everyone has their interests.“

Van Ostenbridge detailed how agricultural areas, for example, have a special interest, and coastal areas have their special interests. In his view, it made sense for these areas to be together within a district, something he felt Kruse’s proposed draft adequately achieved.

Though, another "special interest" Van Ostenbridge listed–the urban core–the cities of Bradenton and Palmetto being divided among two districts in Kruse’s proposed map was not an issue Van Ostenbridge addressed. He did point out the lack of street labels, however.

Van Ostenbridge explained that, overall, he took preference to Kruse’s compromise draft map over both maps A1 and B. After taking into consideration feedback from the public he assessed that neither of the two current draft maps were "wildly popular with the public.“ He stressed that no matter which map the board ultimately decides upon it is unlikely everyone, including district commissioners themselves, will be happy with everything about it.

For his part, Administrator Hopes contributed to the discussion that the goal was to quickly get as much information–and draft maps for consideration–out to the public. He explained to the board that consideration of Kruse’s "compromise map" was just a part of that process. If the board’s decision includes the use of the "compromise map" as a replacement for map B, then the sooner that is decided, the sooner it can also be placed on display and accessible to the public.

"Many of the changes made to Map B, you will hear from the consultant, are favorable changes. I hope you’re focusing on the outcome," Hopes told the board.

In the end, and after hours of mostly heated back and forth, a motion was made to approve Commission Kruse’s compromise map as a replacement to Vanessa Baugh’s Map B. The motion was approved 4-3, with Kruse, Baugh, Satcher, and Van Ostenbridge voting in favor.

The board also approved to schedule a special meeting on redistricting for December 7, allowing discussion and public input before the December 14 meeting where it is anticipated that the board will decide on a finalized map.

The proposed redistricting draft maps can be viewed on the county's website here.