►
From YouTube: Civil Rights & Immigrant Advancement on May 15, 2023
Description
Civil Rights & Immigrant Advancement Hearing - Docket #0928 - Regarding the federal court order to pass a new Council district map.
A
A
Hello,
everyone
today
is
May
15th,
2023,
2
p.m.
Docket
number
0928
I
am
the
chair.
City
councilor
at
large
rootsie
Louisiana
for
the
record.
I
am
the
chair
of
the
Boston
city
council
committee
on
civil
rights
and
immigrant
advancement.
I
am
here
joined
by
my
colleagues,
counselor
Tanya
Financial
Anderson
District
Seven
counselor
at
large
Michael,
Flaherty,
councilor
council
president
Ed
Flynn
of
district
one,
a
District
Two
councilor
at
large
Aaron
Murphy
counselor
Liz
Braden
of
District,
eight
District,
nine
councilor,
Gabriella
Coletta
of
District
One.
B
A
Believe
that
is
everyone.
For
the
moment
this
hearing
is
being
recorded.
It
is
being
live
streamed
at
boston.gov
forward,
slash
City,
Dash,
Council,
TV
and
broadcast
on
Xfinity
channel
8
RCN
channel
82
FiOS
channel
964..
Ryan
comments
may
be
sent
to
the
committee
email
at
CCC,
dot
civil
rights
boston.gov
and
will
be
made
a
part
of
the
record
and
available
to
all
counselors,
also
been
joined
by
City
councilor
Brian
Morello
of
District
Four
public
testimony
will
be
taken
at
the
end
of
this
hearing.
A
If
you
wish
to
sign
up
for
public
testimony
here
in
the
chamber,
please
sign
in
on
the
sheet
near
the
door
if
you
are
looking
to
testify
virtually
please
email,
Shane
pack,
Shane
dot
pack
boston.gov
for
the
link
and
your
name
will
be
added
to
the
list.
Today's
hearing
is
on
docket
number0982
hearing
regarding
the
federal
court
order
to
pass
a
new
Council
District
map.
A
Since
the
purpose
of
this
hearing
is
to
discuss
the
new
Council
District
map,
we
may
talk
about
these
proposals
as
well
as
future
ones
and
what
you
would
like
to
see
in
a
new
map,
but
please
refrain
from
using
specific
dockets
the
format
of
this.
Of
this
hearing
will
be
similar
to
a
working
session
in
terms
of
focus
on
Council
deliberation,
though
public
testimony
is
encouraged
and
welcome,
since
we
will
not
have
large
Maps
available.
Yet
viewing
Maps
may
be
easiest
from
your
laptop
or
tablet.
A
A
The
Court
Judge
Sarah
stated
that
this
body
made
good
faith
efforts
to
comply
with
the
law
and
to
that
I
want
to
say
thank
you
to
chair
Liz
Braden
of
the
redistricting
committee
for
her
efforts
and
the
efforts
of
her
staff
who
deserve
our
thanks
and
nothing
less
in
their
efforts
to
get
us.
A
new
map,
a
map,
redistricting
law,
as
Judge
Sarah
stated,
is
complicated
and
it's
an
area
of
law
that
is
in
flux
where
the
use
of
race
is
complicated
and
where
the
law
is
constantly
being
challenged.
A
I
know
this
because
I
worked
on
three
racial
gerrymanding
cases
that
made
their
way
to
the
Supreme
Court
the
interplay
between
the
Constitution
and
the
Voting
Rights
Act
makes
for
a
delicate
balance
as
a
lot
as
a
line
drawing
body
for
the
Boston
as
a
law
and
drying
body
for
the
city.
Drawing
these
lines
is
currently
our
responsibility.
A
I
personally
wish.
It
was
not
I
believe
that
independent
redistrating
commissions
are
the
best
way
to
draw
lines.
We
as
legislators
sometimes
have
a
vested
interest
in
these
lines
that
mass
what
is
best
for
the
people
who
live
in
these
districts
and
how
best
to
empower
communities
that
have
been
historically
disenfranchised.
A
A
I
am
in
I
just
want
to
say
for
the
record
that
I
am
in
full
support
of
the
for
the
people
act
currently
before
Congress
HR
One,
which
has
needed
campaign.
Finance
reforms
makes
Election
Day
a
federal
holiday,
it
spans
a
franchise
and
makes
voting
Easier
by
expanding
early
voting
and
mail-in
voting,
re-enfranchising,
formerly
and
cross-rated
individuals
and,
most
importantly,
limits
gerrymandering
and
redistricting
by
establishing
independent
redistricting
commissions.
A
But
for
right
now,
redistricting
is
within
our
purview,
and
we
have
work
to
do
so
before
I
dive
in
I
just
want
to
say
that
we
have
been
through
a
lot
as
a
body.
I'm
Envy
district
is
probably
the
hardest
thing
that
a
legislative
body
has
to
do,
and
we
a
lot
of
us
new
counselors,
still
grappling
with
the
pandemic,
leaning
into
our
new
budget
powers
experiencing
local
elections
that
have
been
contentious
within
this
body.
A
It
has
been
a
lot
and
it
can
be
a
recipe
for
disaster
when
trying
to
draw
new
lines,
but
I
see
a
way
out
for
all
of
us,
I
believe
in
this
body's
ability
to
pass
a
new
math.
We
don't
have
much
time
here
we're
under
our
May
30th
deadline
to
ensure
elections
can
sort
of
be
elections.
Department
can
certify
signatures
and
be
on
track
for
our
elections
in
September
November,
without
having
to
move
the
date
of
the
election.
A
So
I
wanted
to
start
off
by
stating
what
the
traditional
redistring
principles
are.
We
had
a
lot
of
talk
about
this
during
our
own
process,
but
just
so
that
we
are
all
on
the
same
page,
compactness,
contiguity,
preservation
of
neighborhoods
and
respect
for
political
boundaries,
respect
for
communities
of
Interest,
which,
admittedly,
can
be
hard
to
pin
down
core
retention
and
some
other
lesser
principles.
But
those
are
the
most
important
and
some
legal
principles
in
the
background
which,
with
with
which
we
must
comply,
is
equal
population.
A
A
Now
I
will
turn
it
over
to
my
colleagues
for
any
opening
remarks
and
statements
which
can
include
your
priorities.
Note.
This
was
noticed
as
a
public
hearing,
but
again
I
want
to
really
hear
from
all
of
my
colleagues
about
their
priorities,
and
so
we
can
get
this
done
as
quickly
as
possible.
So
I'm
going
to
start
by
order
of
arrival
with
counselor
Tanya
Financial
Anderson.
C
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
to
you,
Council
Louisiana,
to
the
vice
chair,
Council
Murphy,
for
your
leadership.
Now
is
not
the
time
for
political
games
and
brinksmanship.
It
is
time
to
put
differences
aside
and
come
together
to
show
positive
leadership
for
the
people
of
Boston.
We
all
came
here
in
the
spirit
of
Public
Service
I'm,
asking
everyone
to
treat
each
other
with
respect,
to
listen,
put
politics
aside
and
do
what's
right
for
the
residents
of
Boston.
Thank
you.
F
A
G
H
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
want
to
thank
councilor
Braden
for
all
of
her
work
and
I
just
wanted
to
Echo
and
really
highlight
the
part
of
your
opening
statements
that
really
guide
us
on
what
we
can
talk
about
today.
The
docket
before
us
is
the
ruling
and
the
DACA
before
us
is
not
a
map,
and
the
civil
rights
committee
I
think,
should
focus
on
really.
What
we
should
be
focusing
on
today
is
really
figuring
out
what
this
ruling
means
and
how
this
is
going
to
guide
us
in
the
drawing
of
our
Maps.
J
This
is
a
civil
rights
issue.
What
is
before
us,
but
we
are
only
talking
about
the
docket
that
is
in
front
of
us
and
not
a
map,
so
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
that
both
for
the
people
who
are
listening
and
really
for
the
council,
because
those
either
maps
and
all
three
of
the
maps
that
are
before
us
are
not
properly
before
the
body,
and
so
we
should
not
be
discussing
them
and
I'm
excited
to
get
to
work.
Thank
you.
A
K
K
But
I
guess
my
question
is:
if
rule
34
says
only
that
specific
item
for
which
it
committed
the
whole
meeting
working
sessions
or
hearing
has
been
called,
shall
be
in
order
at
such
meeting
working
session
or
hearing,
and
if
35a
says
that
hearings
are
to
discuss
and
answer
questions
regarding
a
particular
docket
or
subject
matter,
as
articulated
in
the
hearing
order
assigned
to
the
committee.
How
are
we
able
to
discuss
proposals
with
those
two
rules
on
the
books?
This
is
I
just
want
clarification.
K
Only
because
open
meeting
law
was
made
a
big
part
of
the
suit
that
is
before
us
and
we
have
I
think
like
a
week
base
or
so,
and
they
did
find
that
the
South
Boston
meeting
had
an
open
meeting
violation
in
that
ruling
that
we
had
before
us,
but
they
determined
that
because
there
were
multiple
hearings
thereafter
that
cured
it.
So
if
they
found
that
these
hearings,
either
today
or
tomorrow
or
somehow
an
open
meeting
law
violation,
I
worry,
we
wouldn't
have
the
time
to
cure
it.
A
I
I
take
your
point:
Council
Arroyo.
This
docket
was
noticed
as
a
hearing
to
discuss
new
maps,
so
that
allows
us
to
discuss
new
maps
and
proposals
before
us.
I
understand
your
point
and
I
take
it
under
advisement,
but
we
will
be
discussing
new
proposals
so
that
we
can
get
to
work.
We
are
under
a
really
stringent
deadline,
and
so
our
goal
here
is
to
see
where
we
can
agree
as
a
body
no.
K
K
So,
for
instance,
whatever
we
get
done
will
likely
end
up
either
back
in
front
of
this
same
judge
or
there
will
be
new
suits,
possibly
that
follow
whatever
gets
done,
and
so
my
concern
is
because
we're
on
such
a
tight
timeline
where
we're
talking
about
maybe
a
week
from
Wednesday,
we
wouldn't
have
time
to
cure
a
violation
and
to
me
that
is
incredibly
concerning
based
on
just
how
this
just
went
down
and
so
I.
Don't
think
we
have
the
the
freedom
to
essentially
play
in
the
gray,
so
that
that's
just
my
concern
with
it.
K
So
I'll
waive
my
opening
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
clear
that
we
do
have
Council
rules
on
this
they're,
basically
based
on
open
meeting
law
and
I.
Don't
necessarily
know
that
a
ruling
with
a
notice
which
is
what
it
is,
is
giving
us
the
leeway
to
just
have
a
conversation
about
Maps
until
after
Wednesday,
essentially.
A
A
M
J
A
J
So
effectively
again,
a
point
of
order.
Councilor
Braden,
who
has
been
leading
the
redistricting
process,
is
no
longer
leading
the
redefining
process
and
councilor
lujin.
According
to
the
conversation
that
we're
having
here,
which
is
not
based
on
what
council
Royal
just
shared
in
alignment
with
the
city
council
rules
is
now
handling
redistricting.
A
G
Yeah
I
I
think
the
the
big
issue
for
me
is
that
that
we
don't
currently
have
a
docket
for
the
map
in
front
of
us,
so
we
shouldn't
be
discussing
a
map.
The
mayor's
map.
The
mayor
is
sent
us
a
proposed
redistricting
plan
for
consideration
by
the
council.
It
was
made
public
on
Friday
last
and
released
today
and
the
agenda
for
this
week's
council
meeting.
G
So
it's
important
to
to
remember
that
the
mayor
is
not
a
member
of
the
public
body,
she's
not
subject
to
open
meeting
law,
but
we
are,
and
so
I
really
feel
that
we
can't
properly
discuss
the
mayor's
map
until
we've
had
20
48
hours
notice,
which
after
Wednesday
that
would
the
earliest
we
could
discuss
the
map
would
be
Friday.
That's
just
my
understanding
of
the
rules
and
the
we've
already
got
into
a
mess
with
open
meeting
law
violations.
I,
don't
want
to
repeat
history
again.
K
I
want
to
say
that
I
have
the
hearing
order
in
front
of
me
and
it
says
order
for
a
hearing
regarding
the
federal
court
order
to
pass
a
new
Council
District
map,
which
is
not
redistricting.
That's
a
court
order
to
discuss
the
federal
court
order,
which
that's
a
hearing,
order
to
discuss
the
federal
court
order,
which
is
within
the
purview
of
this
body,
because
we
gave
the
federal
court
order
and
the
notice
here.
K
So
this
would
be
a
good
hearing
to
discuss
what
that
court
order
found
what
the
next
steps
would
have
to
be,
but
not
an
actual
nothing
about
that
letter
or
this
hearing
notice,
which
I'm
reading
right
now
would
allow
us
to
actually
discuss
Maps
or
amendments.
And
again
this
isn't
I
wanted
to
be
clear
about
what
the
issue
here
is.
K
She
wasn't
going
to
take
that
into
account
because
it
was
cured
by
like
the
seven
or
eight
hearings
that
happened
thereafter
in
this
instance,
where
those
Maps
won't
be
in
until
the
48th
until
48-hour
rules
from
Wednesday
the
earliest
we
could
have
a
meeting
is
that
Friday?
Then
we
would
have
Monday
and
Tuesday.
K
But
the
discussing
of
maps
is
not
included
in
that.
Nor
are
we
allowed
to
do
so,
and
I
would
second,
that
we
have
a
redistricting
committee,
I.
Think
Wednesday
when
those
maps
come
up,
there's
obviously
a
question
of
where
the
council
president
or
anyone
else
would
like
to
send
them.
But
ultimately,
before
the
body
right
now
is
simply
a
notice
from
a
federal
judge
stating
that
we
have
to
come
up
with
a
new
map,
and
this
hearing
notice
is
saying
that
they
want
to
discuss
that
federal
court
order.
K
But
it
is
not
saying
that
it
wants
to
discuss
new
maps
amendments
to
possible
Maps
what
those
Maps
could
look
like.
It's
simply
to
notify
the
public
and
have
a
hearing
about
that
federal
court
order
and
what
the
notice
of
that
federal
court
order
mandates
us
to
do.
But
it
is
not
to
sit
here
and
try
to
do
what
that
federal
court
order.
Mandates
for
us
to
do
in
this
hearing
or
on
Tuesday,
and
so
respectfully.
K
K
At
this
time,
that's
not
to
say
in
the
future
that
those
maps
that
have
been
filed
go
to
civil
rights,
that
those
are
present
decisions
and
whether
or
not
the
council
agrees
with
those
or
they
could
go
to
the
whole
or
they
could
go
to
redistricting
and
so
we're
in
a
situation
where
technically
this
body
right
now
can
really
only
talk
about
that
ruling.
What
that
ruling
found?
A
F
Thank
you.
Yes,
thank
you
respectfully
through
the
chair.
If
it's
okay,
if
we
could
maybe
ask
councilor
Coletta
what
her
intention
was
when
you
filed
it
to
go
into
the
Civil,
Rights
and
I,
know
counselor
Worrell
seconded
that,
because
I
did
vote
no
for
the
same
reason,
I'm
hearing,
now
that
there
was
confusion,
because
I
believed
that
it
did
mean
that
the
map
making
was
put
into
the
civil
rights
committee,
which
is
what
I
thought
we
were
here
to
do
today.
Also
so
I'm,
not
sure
if
that
could
help.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Just
the
mayor
of
the
executive
branch
is
not
subject
to
the
open
meeting
law
and
there
is
a
suggestion
by
hurano
the
mayor
that
there's
a
map
in
the
public
domain,
which
I
believe
that
we
could
discuss.
We
cannot
discuss
matters
that
this
body
had
filed
by
the
timeline
this
morning
that
will
be
introduced
on
Wednesday
when
those
matters
come
in
on
Wednesday
they'll
that
we
can
properly
discuss
them.
D
A
Thank
you,
chair
Flair.
Thank
you,
Council
Flaherty,
at
this
moment,
out
of
an
abundance
of
caution,
I
am
going
to
take
a
recess
so
that
we
can
confer
and
ensure
that
we
are
not
engaging
in
anything
that
would
to
determine
what
the
parameters
are
and
just
so
that
we
are
clear
for
the
record,
so
we'll
take
a
brief
recess.
Thank
you.
C
C
C
M
M
M
M
A
A
A
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
A
A
A
A
A
As
order
for
hearing
regarding
the
federal
court
order
to
pass
a
new
Council
District
map,
given
elicit
topics
specifically
implicates
this
Council
and
the
process
to
create
such
a
map,
it
follows
that
issues
generally
related
to
the
creation
of
a
new
map
are
permitted
for
discussion,
as
they
seem
to
naturally
throw
from
that
discussion
out
of
an
abundance
of
caution.
We
are
going
to
proceed
to
talk
about
generally
about
what
people
want
to
see
in
a
map.
A
The
mayor's
map
is
one
that
has
been
disseminated
in
the
public,
which
folks
have
talked
about
and
discussed.
We
know
that
members
of
the
media
are
here
because
of
that
map,
but
I
will.
We
will
limit
our
discussion
to
generalities
about
what
folks
would
like
to
see
what
my
colleagues
would
like
to
see
in
their
proposal
and
then
thank
you
to
the
members
of
the
public.
We
will
then
hear
from
you
thank
you
for
coming.
A
We
will
then
hear
a
testimony
about
what
you
would
like
to
see
in
a
map,
and
so
I
will
I
will
begin
with
what
it
is.
That
I
would
like
to
see
in
a
map,
as
ordered
by
the
federal
court,
which
found
that,
in
drawing
the
lines
with
respect
to
District
three
and
four,
it
was
more
like
it
was
likely
that
race
predominated
and
therefore
she
issued
a
preliminary
injunction.
A
So
when
you
make
changes
to
districts,
three
and
four
part
of
the
considerations-
and
my
belief
is
that
we
keep
Wards
whole.
We
keep
communities
of
Interest
whole,
and
so
you
keep
Ward
16
whole
Ward.
Precinct
1713
is
one
that
can
be
kept
in
District
4
four
I
grew
up
in
1713
right
next
door
in
1714
is
a
is
also
a
neighborhood.
That
I
very
much
feel
like
was
part
of
my
neighborhood.
A
When
I
was
growing
up,
it
is
Lower
Mills,
whereas
the
ward
16
area
is
more
so
Adams
Village
and
Cedar,
Grove
and
I
believe
that
we
can
unite
communities
of
Interest
like
we
do
in
eight
one
and
nine
one
that
we
listened
to
the
testimony
of
our
colleagues,
who
advocated
for
certain
public
housing
to
stay
together,
that
we
unite
certain
neighborhoods
that
are
small
like
the
West
End
and
that
we
really
put
in.
We
sent
our
core
retention
here
and
when
you
fix
a
district
line.
A
It
is
good
to
look
at
the
list
of
when
we
look
at
the
Baseline
map,
the
precincts
that
were
moved
in
and
out
of
a
district
to
see
if
those
changes
were
necessary
and
then
to
look
at
the
historic
placement
of
some
of
the
precincts.
What
has
been
historically
in
District
in
a
certain
district
and
what
has
not
those
are
the
things
that
I
would
like
to
prioritize
in
a
new
map.
A
E
E
I
had
the
opportunity
to
talk
with
them
during
the
two-hour
break
and
they
were
concerned
in
asking
questions
about
the
process
and
I
think
you
explained
it
Council
Louisiana,
so
I
want
to
say
thank
you,
but
I.
Think
as
a
body
I'm
disappointed
that
we
we
had
residency
waiting
for
two
hours,
I,
don't
think
it
was
I,
don't
think
it's
respectful
and
I'm,
not
blaming
anyone.
Anyone
I'm
blaming
all
of
us
I
think
we
all
can
do
better
in
my
constituents
deserve
to
be
treated
with
respect.
E
I
know
other
District
councilors
if
it
was
their
District,
if
it
was
their
constituents,
they'd
be
saying
the
same
thing
so
I'm,
I'm,
I'm,
disappointed
and
and
what
happened
during
the
last
two
hours
and
on
behalf
of
myself
and
my
colleagues
and
I
know
Council
Louisiana
apologized,
but
I
I
also
want
to
apologize
and
I'm
I'm.
Very
sorry
that
happened
to
you.
Thank
you.
Council
Houston.
A
Thank
you,
council,
president
Flynn.
We
are
obviously
here
because
the
court
ordered
us
in
short
order
to
create
a
new
map,
and
that
is
an
urgent
issue.
It
is
an
emergency,
but
we
also
know
that
the
Genesis
of
this
issue
is.
We
started
in
litigation
and
we
know
that
there
are
interests
that
are.
There
are
interests
that
are
interested
in
keeping
this
in
litigation,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
an
election
in
the
fall
and
that
we
dot
our
eyes
and
cross
our
T's.
A
And
so
again
there
was
deliberation
for
a
lengthy
period
to
make
sure
that
we
were
complying
with
the
law
and
we
believe
that
we
are
complying
with
the
law
even
considering
proposals,
but
out
of
an
abundance
of
caution.
We
are
going
to
speak
just
generally
to
what
folks
want
to
see
in
a
map.
So
do
any
of
my
Council
colleagues
want
to
put
anything
on
the
floor
about
what
they
would
like
to
see
in
a
new
map.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
think
you
know
I'm
I'm
wondering
about
when
you
say,
keep
Wars
whole
award
boundaries
were
drawn
over
100
years
ago,
and
and
there's
a
lot
has
changed
in
Boston.
Since
then,
I
I
wanted
to
speak
to
the
issue.
As
the
District
9
City
councilor
I
want
to
speak
to
an
Olsen
Brighton's
role
in
the
city-wide
redistricting
first
glance.
I
know:
we've
had
some
pointed
comments
to
at
first
glance.
G
It
would
appear
in
The,
District
9
remains
untouched
in
every
single
proposed
and
enacted
redistricting
Clan,
and
this
is
because
of
a
number
of
the
number
of
precincts
in
each
district
had
has
on
their
perimeter
that
touches
another
adjacent
District.
So
we're
really
really
limited.
What
we
can
do
is
dictated
by
the
amount
of
contiguous
districts
that
you
can
actually
move
precincts
in
and
out
of
so
District
9
District
1
has
nine
precincts.
G
District
Two
has
22
precincts,
District,
3
and
21
precincts
District
4
had
20
precincts
that
could
be
moved
or
on
the
on
the
edge
District
Five
had
12
precincts
district
6
had
16.
district
7
had
19
District,
8
and
15,
and
District
9
has
just
won,
because
that's
the
only
one
District
that
is
contiguous
with
one
Precinct
is
contiguous
with
District
8..
So
you
know
it
doesn't
mean
that
there
was
favoritism
to
District
9,
because
the
concert
sharing
the
redistricting
process.
G
It
was
really
just
that
we
were
really
constrained
by
the
by
the
geography
and
the
history
three.
So
even
if
we
wanted
to
add
population
and
I
think
this
is
this
Bears
out
in
discussion
about
other
districts.
If
we
wanted
to
add
population
to
District
nine
up
to
the
maximum
five
percent
maximum
of
78
825,
it
wouldn't
be
possible
because
the
one
Precinct
that
we
could
move
would
Elevate
the
population
in
District
9
to
80
372
1500
residents.
More
than
is
allowed
so
I
think
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
is
that
we
have.
G
So
with
this
sort
of
domino
effect
that
I'm
trying
to
trying
to
talk
about-
and
the
issue
also
is
that
we
have
an
immensely
unequal
population.
Balance
across
Precinct
and
comprehensive
precincting
is
long
overdue.
We
did
some
Monastery
precincting
last
year
in
after
the
census,
we
we
created
20
new
precincts.
16
of
them
were
split,
which
we
worked
on
the
Baseline
map
to
try
and
unify
those.
But
you
know
as
we
go
forward
this
representing
needs
to
happen
between
well
ahead
of
the
20.
You
know
in
the
in
the
next
before
the
next.
G
A
Thank
you,
councilor
Braden,
and
your
point
on
contiguity
as
well,
taken
as
it
is.
The
second
is
the
one
of
the
top
redistricting
principles,
and
so,
at
least
on
my
accounts,
I
was
not
saying
anything
about
Austin
and
Brighton
and
their
you
know
whether
or
not
the
domino
effect
will
affect
you
out
in
District.
A
Nine
I
also
agree
that
we
need
to
be
presenting
throughout
the
city
because
of
that
inequality
that
you
talk
about,
and
in
10
years
from
now
the
problems
that
we
see,
we
will
have
to
figure
out
what
we
do
with
Austin
Brighton,
and
we
will
have
to
think
about
what
that
means
for
our
council
districts
or
whether
we
need
additional
districts
to
really
grapple
with
the
issue
that
you
mentioned.
So
your
point
is
well
taken:
counselor
Murphy,
you
have.
L
F
Thank
you.
Some
of
my
desires
going
forward
is
definitely
to
keep
the
plaintiff's
requests
like
Rita
Dixon,
keeping
Mattapan
whole
and
in
D4
also
keeping
communities
of
interest
in
Ward,
16
and
13,
including
the
Little
Saigon
Fields
Corner
neighborhood
into
D3
and
reuniting
communities
of
interest
within
the
South
Boston
public
housing
in
towards
six
and
seven
within
D2
are
some
of
mine
that
I'll
start
with.
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you
manager,
and
just
to
our
colleagues
comments
and
the
council
from
District.
9
makes
some
very
valid
points
and
she
knows
her
District
better
than
anyone
and
as
her
District
continues
to
grow
in
District,
nine
and
I
know
our
colleague
from
district
one
and
as
her
District
continues
to
grow,
particularly
with
the
stuff
that's
already
in
the
pipeline.
It
makes
District
8,
which
is
the
downtown
district.
D
It
makes
District's
eight
role
extremely
important
and
remaining
in
the
downtown
to
absorb
a
growth
from
District,
9
and
district
one
because
of
because
they're
contiguous,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
District
8
is
centered
in
everyone's
thought
process
and
as
the
downtown
Council
or
counselor
seat.
That
is
very
needed
moving
forward
with
respect
to
the
growth
that
is
currently
underway
in
District
9
in
district
one.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
H
A
I
Thank
you
chair
leader,
Louis
Jen,
and
thank
you
for
your
leadership.
As
a
district,
counselor
I
think
it
will
be
helpful
for
compactness
there's
areas
within
my
district,
where
I
do
like
this
weird
little
loop
around
certain
precincts
and
making.
You
know
if
we're
putting
more
Compact
and
you
know,
bringing
more
Awards
whole
I,
think
that
will
help
contiguous
lines.
I
I
think
it
would
also
be
helpful
in
taking
a
little
historical
look
at
it
as
well
on
what
historically
District
4
has
been
I
think
will
be
helpful
as
well
also
just
take
into
consideration
the
communities
of
interest
that
have
you
know,
came
into
the
last
process
and
spoke
up
on
on
them
wanting
to
be
United.
So
those
are
my
my
three
or
four
things:
compactness,
taking
a
look
at
the
Historical
lines,
Community
communities
of
interest
that
have
already
came
to
the
council
in
contiguity.
Thank
you.
K
K
Think
it's
important
to
note
that
in
my
Council,
District
I
actually
currently
have
the
majority
of
matapan,
and
so
when
we're
sort
of
discussing
communities
of
interest
and
preservation
of
core
districts
and
prior
districts,
I
think
where
we
can
do
work
to
unified
neighborhoods
without
entirely
separating
or
cutting
apart
already,
unified
neighborhoods
I
think
it's
clear
both
from
the
judge's
order,
but
also
from
traditional
principles
that
that
is
sort
of
the
route
to
go
and
so
places
like
Lower
Mills,
where
half
of
Lower
Mills
I
think
is
essentially
two
precincts.
1713
1714.
K
Those
two
precincts
exist
in
two
separate
districts,
but
both
comprised
Lower,
Mills
and
so
sort
of
where
we
can
add
one
Precinct
to
unify
a
neighborhood
I.
Think
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
In
some
instances
there
are
issues
where
neighborhoods
are
split
so
much
so
that
to
try
to
unite
them,
we
would
have
to
remove
core
precincts
or
do
certain
things
like
that,
and
so
I
would
recommend
that
we
not
do
that,
at
least
for
me.
K
That
would
not
be
a
priority
and
then
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
has
sort
of
brought
us
to
sort
of
this
conundrum
I
think
it's
not
two
decades
in
a
row
is
the
rapid
growth
in
District
Two
and
the
deficiency
of
population
in
District,
three,
and
so
obviously
a
lot
of
our
changes
should
be
dedicated
to
solving
that
population
imbalance
and
that
one
person,
one
vote
issue
that
we
have,
and
so
those
those
are,
the
things
that
I
would
be
looking
at.
Just
in
terms
of
how
this
process
moves
forward.
E
Also
going
up
to
Andrew
square
area
in
the
Polish
triangle
into
mass
and
Cass,
but
the
public
housing
is
really
the
unifying
group
in
District
Two.
It's
about
supporting
public
housing
residents.
That's
what
that's!
What
this
district
has
always
been
about:
supporting
public
housing
residents,
supporting
immigrant
neighbors
people
of
color;
that's
what
that's!
E
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
think
for
me
there
are
a
couple
of
things
that
are
important
to
note
and
I'll
slow
down
a
little
bit
because
I
hear
that
there's
translating
happening
one
there's
a
few
things
that's
important
to
to
note
and
that
I
would
like
to
see
in
the
new
map
that's
drawn
by
the
city
council.
I.
Think
primarily
I
would
like
to
say
that
this
is
not
a
reset
button.
The
city
council
has
had
a
rediffiting
process.
We
have
had
extensive
hearings.
J
We
have
heard
from
community
members
from
experts
from
leaders
from
Civic
associations
about
what
they
would
like
to
see
in
the
map.
What
we
are
doing
now
is
responding
to
a
court
order
and
the
reason
why
it's
important
for
me
to
say
that
is
because
one
of
the
things
that
I
would
like
us
to
see
is
to
make
as
the
minimal
amount
of
changes
in
the
ruling.
J
The
judge
was
very
clear
that
there
was
a
possibility
that
we
likely
violated
the
equal
protections
act
in
the
way
that
we
drew
District
three
and
four,
and
that
there
was
an
overpopulation
in
District
2
and
an
under
population.
In
District
3.,
there
is
no
reason
for
us
to
make
changes
without
proper
process
to
communities
and
districts
that
are
not
District.
Two
three
and
four,
as
outlined
by
the
judge's
ruling
and
the
judge's
order.
J
I
think
the
reality
is
that
we
have
a
very
clear
direction,
and,
what's
most
important
to
me,
is
that
we
follow
the
directions
that
are
given
to
us
by
the
judges,
not
a
reset
button.
We
don't
get
to
go
back
and
disrupt
neighborhoods
and
districts
without
proper
process,
and
it's
not
because
the
council
doesn't
want
to
have
proper
processes,
because
we
don't
have
the
time
to
have
proper
process
and
because
we
don't
have
the
time
to
have
proper
process.
J
We
shouldn't
be
disrupting
communities
for
months
before
an
election,
and
so
I
am
looking
for
us
to
be
surgical
with
the
changes
that
we
make
and
not
completely
uproot.
That
is
in
alignment
with
what
the
judge
has
prescribed
to
us
as
being
the
traditional
principles
of
redistricting.
Is
that
we're
protecting
the
core
so
the
ways
that
we
do,
that
that
we
stay
in
line
with
the
ruling?
We
keep
Cedar
Grove
and
Adams
Village
together?
J
We
unify
Lower
Mills,
we
keep
South
Boston
as
a
whole
in
District
Two
and
then
make
as
minimal
changes
as
possible
to
really
correct
for
the
population
balance
that
is
necessary.
I
think
that
we
have
a
very,
very
small
amount
of
time
here.
We
have
very
clear
directions
from
the
judge,
and
no
changes
should
happen
that
are
outside
of
the
purview
that
are
here.
This
is
not
a
reset
button.
This
is
not
a
free-for-all.
This
is
not
like.
J
N
On
the
floor
that
all
sounds
well
and
good,
but
my
community
is
where
the
communities
that
were
most
disrupted,
we
didn't
have
any
voice,
even
though
I
was
the
loudest.
Like
multiple
people
have
said,
even
though
I
was
the
loudest,
I
was
not
listened
to.
I
did
not
see
any
communication
from
people
that
were
in
my
neighborhoods
that
went
to
the
chair.
I
didn't
see
any
email,
Communications
I
didn't
see
anything
about
people
actually
being
listened
to
so
I
like
the
fact
that
we're
not
looking
to
be
disruptive
now,
but
it's
too
late.
N
So
that
mean
not
being
disruptive,
we're
going
back
to
Baseline
map
and
we're
going
to
figure
it
out
from
there
because
that's
the
least
amount
to
changes.
There
are
a
whole
lot
of
changes
that
happened
in
this
map
that
didn't
need
to
happen.
There
was
a
question
that
was
asked
in
court.
Well,
why
did
you
go
down
to
District
three
and
take
those
five
precincts
out
of
that?
Nobody
could
answer
that
now,
all
of
a
sudden
we're
gonna
we're
gonna
to
reunite
Lower
Mills.
N
Well,
guess
what
traditionally,
historically,
where
you
Lower
Mills
has
been,
is
in
District
three,
so
yeah,
let's
reunite
it,
but
give
me
give
me
District,
3
17,
14,
17,
13,
17,
4
and
17
11..
That
would
be
Saint
Greg's
back
to
parises,
even
though
we
don't
believe
in
Parish
lines.
They
were
they
were.
They
were
neighborhood
community
lines.
N
I
would
like
this
one
to
be
out
front
up
front
where
we're
legitimately
talking
about
precincts
and
not
just
people
throwing
Maps
out
there,
because
one
side
has
has
the
has
the
votes.
This
is
about
communities.
You
all
just
said
it's
all
about
communities.
Every
Community,
every
Community
deserves
their
voice,
and
that's
why
it's
minimal
changes.
What
I
said
Ad
nauseam
in
the
first
process,
Baseline
minimal
changes
because
the
more
we
go
in
and
move
precincts
around
the
more
we're
going
to
get
into
neighborhoods
communities
of
Interest
Woods
precincts.
N
We
don't
want
to
do
that
so
I
like
the
chocolate
saying
we're
going
to
be
the
least
disruptive,
but
does
that
mean
least
disruptive
on
on
a
map
that
was
found
to
be
unconstitutional
1275?
Are
we
going
to
be
the
least
amount
of
movements
on
that
map
or
what?
What
are
we
doing
for
our
base
here?
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
D
You
manager,
obviously
coming
in
from
a
city-wide
perspective,
like
yourself,
I
actually
have
to
you
come
up
with
a
great
line
in
the
opening
which
I'm
I'm
going
to
have
to
use
from
time
to
time,
which
is
we
don't
get
to
choose
our
voters?
They
choose
us
and
I,
really
think
that
needs
to
sort
of
guide.
This
process,
we're
elected
by
the
people
that
we
represent,
District,
obviously,
and
at
large
and
I,
think
part
of
the
problem.
D
We
we
get
into
with
respect
to
minimal
changes
and
again
respecting,
if
everyone's
coming
to
the
table
in
good
faith,
willing
to
sort
of
put
in
play
three
or
four
precincts
into
a
willing
to
accept
three
or
four
precincts.
We
probably
wouldn't
be
in
this
situation.
But
what
happened?
Was
we
have
this
map
to
describe
this
piece
of
paper?
Sorry,
not
the
map,
but
the
piece
of
paper.
It
shows
very
minimal
changes
to
several
districts,
but
then
this
body
took
a
meat
cleaver
to
districts,
two
three
and
four
and
so
I.
Just
cautioned.
D
When
we
do
minimal
changes,
then
it
means
that
the
Cannons
get
focused
on
one
area
and
so
respecting.
My
colleagues
comment
on
minimal
I,
I,
understand
it
in
theory,
but
in
practice
we
need
to
make
sure
we
don't
violate
the
14th
Amendment.
We
need
to
make
sure
we
don't
violate
the
Voting
Rights
Act.
D
So
if
we-
but
if
we
all
come
to
the
table
being
register
council
is,
if
we
all
come
to
the
table
willing
to
to
to
to
potentially
part
with,
say
three
or
four,
possibly
five
or
except
two,
three
four
I
think
we'll
have
a
better
process.
If
everyone's
coming
in
sacred
cow,
not
wanting
to
give
or
get,
it
leads
us
to
sort
of,
and
that's
what
happened.
It
was
a
big
part
of
what
happened
in
in
this
first
round.
Is
that
no
one
wanted
to
kind
of
no
one
wanted
to
give?
D
No
one
wanted
to
get.
Everyone
was
I'm
all
set
my
people
in
my
district,
and
then
we
get
into
this
situation
and
so
I.
Clearly
we
are
responding
to
it
to
a
court
order.
We
have
a
number
of
plaintiffs
that
are
looking
to
us
to
solve
the
conundrum
and
just
ask
through
the
chair
that
our
colleagues
continue
to
operate
in
good
faith.
Be
willing,
based
on
your
comment,
that
we
don't
get
to
choose
our
voters.
D
They
they
choose
us
and
if
you
have
that
spirit
and
that
intention
and
you're
willing
to
roll
up
the
sleeves
I,
think
it's
a
solvable
problem.
I
would
prefer
us
solve
the
problem
than
to
have
a
secretary
of
state
and
or
the
federal
court
do
it
for
us.
But
it
really
is
going
to
require
us
to
dig
deep.
D
You
always
say
what
do
I
need
to
do
better,
which
neighborhoods
do
I
need
to
grow,
which
neighborhoods
do
I
need
to
to
build
new
relationships
with
Civic
associations
and
Community
leaders
and
Ward
committees
do
I
need
to
to
get
back
in
touch
with,
and
the
same
goes
for
our
district
colleagues
if
you're
going
to
be
going
into
to
a
new
territory.
It's
a
that's
an
awesome.
D
That's
an
awesome
challenge,
an
awesome
responsibility
and
an
opportunity
for
growth,
as
well
so
to
my
district
colleagues
that
have
to
either
a
part
with
a
district
with
a
Precinct
or
accept
a
Precinct.
Do
it
with
excitement?
Do
it
with
an
opportunity
to
meet
new
folks
and
to
and
to
experience,
you
know
new
challenges,
while
you
serving
them
as
the
district
city
council.
D
A
A
J
You
madam
chair
I,
just
wanted
to
in
response
I
really
appreciate.
Councilor
Floyd
he's
a
zest
for
the
Democratic
process
and
I
wanted
to
also
just
clarify
that
there,
although
there
was
a
likely
violation
of
the
equal
protections,
acts
that
was
found
by
the
judge.
The
judge
also
very
much
specified
in
the
ruling
that
it
was
between
District,
three
and
four,
and
so
it
was
not
if,
if
there
was
a
violation
of
the
equal
protections
act
in
the
entire
map
and
we're
being,
we
were
being
asked
to
throw
the
entire
map
away.
J
3
is
also
underpopulated,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
when
I
talk
about
minimal
changes,
I
am
talking
about
following
the
ruling
of
the
judge
here,
who
found
a
violation
in
a
very
specific
part.
In
a
verse,
specific
way
that
we
drew
the
map
and
wanted
us
to
focus
in
correcting
the
overpopulation
in
District
2,
correcting
the
underpopulation
in
District,
3,
compactness
I,
think
councilman.
Baker
is
right
in
terms
of
really
protecting
communities
of
interest
and
I.
From
what
I'm
hearing
from
my
colleagues,
it
seems
like
we're
all
in
the
same
page.
J
I
just
really
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
being
anchored
by
the
ruling
that
is
in
front
of
us,
because
it
is
like
Council
Arroyo,
said
earlier.
It
is
likely
that
this
is
going
to
end
up
in
court
again
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
protected
as
the
council,
so
I
just
want
us
to
follow
directions.
J
G
I
think
it
really
is
the
the
issue
about
core
retention
and
the
minimal
changes.
I.
Think
the
the
analysis
of
our
of
the
math
that
we
presented
had
had
minimal
changes.
The
total
number
of
residents
that
were
reassigned
reapportioned
to
a
different
District
was
49
534
across
the
total.
That
was
a
7.3
change
and
I.
Think
the
expert
witness
did
say
that
that's
a
very
that's
a
very
high
level
of
core
retention
that
we
weren't
actually
moving
large
numbers
of
people
into
new
districts.
G
So
I
really
feel
strongly
that
District
8
especially
needs
to
sort
of
be
able
to
have
that
pivotal
role
to
to
be
sort
of,
because
no
other
district
will
actually
be
able
to
absorb
or
or
shed
population
to
accommodate
district
one
and
District
9
going
forward.
So
I
think.
That's
an
important
consideration.
Thank
you.
Council.
D
Thank
you,
man
for
just
a
quick
footnote.
The
courts
had
also
had
recognized
that
District
2
had
grown,
but
also
they
recognized
that
District
8
had
grown,
and
then
they
couldn't
figure
out
why
District
Two
needed
to
shed
why
District
Two
had
picked
up
growth
in
from
District
8
and
then
the
same.
Conversely,
they
looked
at
District
3
and
they
said
District
three
needs
to
gain,
but
yet
they
immediately
saw
that
and
that
was
termed
as
the
boot
they
termed
that
the
boot
was
moved
over
to
District
Four.
D
They
felt
that
District
4's
numbers
were
were
pretty
good
in
on
track
and
they
couldn't
figure
out
why
there
was
an
infusion
from
District
3
into
District
Four.
So
I
wanted
one
to
have
the
full
perspective
as
sort
of
what
took
place
down
at
the
moakley
courthouse,
and
so,
while
we're
talking
about
sort
of
minimal
moves
and
understand
and
appreciate
that
that
we
want
to
try
to
get
something
done
fairly
quickly
and
one
would
think
that
the
least
amount
of
moves
would
would
get
us
there
and
that
may
or
may
not
be
the
case.
D
But
what
I
can
say
is
that,
when
you're
looking
at
some
of
these
moves,
it
was
folks
that
had
to
shed
were
picking
up
folks
that
had
to
gain
were
losing
and
it
was
sort
of
that
kind
of
Rubik's
Cube
that
was
cut.
What
was
going
on
that
kind
of
got
us
in
the
soup,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
we
learn
from
those
mistakes.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
just
want
to
pick
up
on
Council
Flaherty's
comments.
The
district
2
with
the
recently
approved
map
that
was
recently
thrown
out,
but
the
re
that
map
actually
in
for
District
Two,
actually
picked
up
a
Precinct
almost
in
the
Fenway
area
on
the
border
of
the
Back
Bay
and
Fenway
Saint
Cecilia
church
right
down
the
road
a
little
bit
from
heading
towards
heading
towards
the
Fenway
Fenway
Park.
E
Actually
it
has
one
Dalton
Street
in
there
of
people
are
familiar
with
one
Dalton,
Street
I
think
it
has
the
most
millionaires
in
in
the
city
in
that
one
building,
but
District
Two
picked
up
that
Precinct
in
the
Fenway
Back
Bay
Area
and
lost
the
precincts.
The
precinct
where
public
housing
was
that,
could
that
was
connected
to
three
other
public
housing
developments?
So
I
just
want
to
acknowledge
that
my
colleagues
also
know
and
now
acknowledge
that
you
know
keeping
public
housing
together
is
a
critical,
critical
part
of
this
process.
E
A
E
A
And
I
just
wanted
to
state
that
the
in
the
finding
of
the
Court,
where
they
found
that
there
was
likely
a
constitutional
violation
that
potentially
violated
the
14th
amendment's
equal
protection
Clause.
Yes,
we
look
at
the
District
3
and
the
District
4
border
and
that's
going
to
have
a
domino
effect
as
councilor
Braden
stated,
and
so
because
of
that
Domino
fact.
You
have
to
think
about
how
do
I
resolve
that
domino
effect,
and
you
look
at
the
changes
that
we
originally
made.
So
we
don't
have
to
make
a
lot
of
changes
to
the
map.
A
We
do
have
to
focus
on
the
issue
that
the
court
found
and
that
overpopulation
in
District
2,
which
is
why
I
feel
like
this
document
is
important,
because
it
shows
the
changes
that
were
made
between
the
Baseline
and
the
final
map,
which
can
also
be
a
guide
for
how
we
make
those
population
changes
that
are
going
to
need
to
happen
once
we
cure
the
issue
in
the
booth.
And
so
that's
why
this
document
is
important,
we're
not
operating
in
a
vacuum.
A
N
Everybody's
talking
about
simple
changes,
I
think
Clarity
just
said
couple
precincts
here
and
there.
If
I
counted
correctly,
1275
I
could
12
changes.
12
changes,
that's
not
that's
not
small,
and
you
said
changes
that
we
made.
There
were
people
on
this
body
that
were
not
part
of
any
of
those
discussions
or
any
of
those
changes.
That's
a
problem
so
you're
talking
about
going
to
a
1275,
a
map
that
has
been
ruled
unconstitutional
and
thrown
out
by
a
federal
judge
and
we're
going
to
use
that
as
a
jumping
off
point.
A
Baker
I
did
not
state
that
we
were
using
anything
as
our
starting
off
point,
but
I
did
state
that
this
document
that
shows
the
changes
from
the
Baseline
to
the
enacted
map.
The
now
in
joined
map
is
going
to
be
and
should
be
a
guidepost
to
how
we
solve
the
issues.
Once
we
cure
the
potential
constitutional
deficiency
that
exists
on
the
border
of
District
three
and
four.
N
It
horrifies
me
that
you
want
to
go
and
again
you
haven't
quite
answered
what
we're
going
to
jump
off
from,
but
it
seems
like
all
around
here.
We
want
to
make
minimal
changes
to
12.75..
1275
should
be
in
the
rear
view
and
I
know.
People
don't
want
to
start
this
over,
but
there
were
communities
that
were
harmed
communities
that
were
harmed
and
there's
multiple
people
on
that
plaintiff
list
that
were
harmed
that
feel
that
their
rights
were
harmed
I
think
we
should
go
back
to
the
Baseline
map
and
figure
out
the
small
changes
from
there.
A
Thank
you,
councilor
Baker,
again,
I
think
this
document
is
instructive.
The
Baseline
to
final
map,
Precinct
changes.
We
are
not
required
to
go
back
to
the
Baseline
map
and
we
are
not
required
to
just
look
at
what
is
happening
at
three
or
four.
It's
actually
impossible
to
just
look
at
what's
happening
at
three
and
four
because
of
the
domino
effect
right.
A
Therefore,
we
have
to
go
back
cure
that
constitutional
violation
and
in
so
doing
there
will
be
a
domino
effect
which
means
that
we
have
to
make
up
for
that
domino
effect,
which
is
why
looking
at
what
we
originally
had,
yes
in
the
Baseline
and
the
changes
that
we
made
will
be
instructive
and
there
are
other
changes
that
will
be
made
to
the
map.
I
believe
based
on
here.
A
The
comments
that
I'm
hearing
from
my
colleagues
to
ensure
that
public
housing
is
prioritized
in
certain
districts
to
ensure
that
at
least
where
we're
able
to
keep
smaller
neighborhoods
together
that
we're
able
to
do
that
that
we're
able
to
prioritize
keeping
communities
of
Interest
together
again
a
complicated
term
legally.
But
that's
what
we're
going
to
do
so.
A
I,
don't
have
a
perfect
answer
for
you
in
terms
of
the
starting
off
point,
but
I
do
repeat
that
this
will
be
instructive
because
it
shows
the
changes
that
we
made
from
the
Baseline
map
to
the
enacted
currently
enjoying
map
Council
Murphy,
councilman,
Murphy,
Oh,
Council
Arroyo
casserole
are
you
gonna
have
the
floor.
Thank.
K
K
That
was
a
incorrect
way
to
handle
that.
In
fact,
she
says
that
she
did
not
find
a
violation
of
that
particular
part
when
we're
talking
about
how
South,
Boston
and
District
2,
and
these
developments
were
split.
However,
what
she
does
make
reference
to
is
what
people
are
referring
to
as
boot
or
lower
District
three,
and
so
from
that
standpoint.
This
has
always
been
an
exercise
about.
K
It
makes
much
sense
that
when
we're
talking
about
minor
changes,
we're
talking
about
these
two
districts,
I
also
just
wanted
to
ask
through
the
chair
to
councilor
Flaherty,
because
I've
read
this
several
times,
I,
don't
see
any
reference
to
District
8
in
this
document
at
all,
and
so
I'm
I.
Don't
know
that
the
judge
had
any
real
opinions
about
District,
8
and
I.
Think
when
we're
talking
about
District
8
itself,
my
understanding
and
I
would
sort
of
defer
to
councilor
Braden,
who
chaired
the
last
redistricting
session.
K
But
my
understanding
was
that
District
8
was
for
more
or
less
in
compliance
and
that
the
major
aspect
of
compliance
or
non-compliance
for
the
one
person
one
vote
was
District
3
and
District
Two
and
so
I
think
when
people
are
talking
about
minor
changes
and
I
understand
the
concerns.
Other
counselors
have
stressed
about
what
the
the
map
we
are
basing
everything
off,
of
which
I
understand
that
the
chair
has
not
provided
anything
and
I.
Think
at
this
point.
That
makes
sense.
K
However,
I
would
just
say
what
we
have
is
a
reality
is
District
2
and
District.
3
have
a
population
imbalance.
They
have
a
one
person,
one
vote.
They
are
right
next
to
each
other.
These
are
things
that
can
be
solved
with
minimal
disruption
to
the
rest
of
the
city.
If
we
resolve
much
of
it
between
those
two
districts,
and
so
that
is
simply
something
that
I
would
like
to
see
us
do,
because
if
we
do
start
a
cascading
impact
of
moving
this,
then
it
moves
this
District.
Then
it
moves
that
District.
K
Then
it
moves
that
district
and
the
reality
is
we
have
maybe
a
week,
and
so
that
is
not
more
than
enough
time
to
actually
engage
all
of
these
communities
to
ensure
that
they
are
being
heard
in
that
process.
If
we
are
starting
to
move
entire
districts
or
precincts
that
have
never
had
conversations
about
being
moved
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
do
our
very
best
to
ensure
a
community
process
here,
while
also
addressing
what
is
legally
and
foundationally.
K
The
issue
that
we
have,
which
is
these
two
districts,
have
with
population
imbalance,
and
we
have
to
come
to
a
conclusion
on
how
that
population
imbalance
should
be
solved,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
that
note
and
also
request.
If,
if
you
can
enlighten
me
as
to
where
the
federal
court
order
refers
to
District
data
as
being
confusing
or
any
issues
with
District
8
is
compliance.
A
Thank
you,
counselor
I
would
just
state
if
you
stated
this
in
the
beginning.
I
did
not
hear
a
counselor
state
that
the
court
stated
that
there
was
a
constitutional
violation
anywhere
else
other
than
a
potential
constitutional
violation
anywhere
else
other
than
districts.
Three
and
four
so
I
did
not
hear
a
counselor
make
a
statement,
so
maybe
I
misread
yeah.
A
D
Because
it
was
named,
what
I
think
he
may
understood
is
so
District
8
grew
in
population
in
District
Two
under
the
map
that
was
struck
down,
absorbed
that
growth.
At
a
time
when
District
Two
was
was
being
asked
to
shed
growth,
and
so
I
think
it
was
somewhat
counter-intuitive
that
District
8
grew
District
Two
supposed
to
shed,
but
for
whatever
reason
they
put
as
it
mentioned,
I
think
Fenway
and
some
other
areas
were
were
pushed
into
to
District
Two
in
the
last
map.
D
So
that
may
be
with
some
of
the
confusion,
so
District
a
grew
along
with
District
Two
I
know
we
focused
on
the
district
2
growth,
but
I
want
to
let
College
know
that
District
8
grew
as
well
and
two
for
some
reason:
absorb
the
growth
in
eight
eight
didn't
absorb
the
growth
or
didn't
didn't
maneuver
around
the
growth.
It
was,
let's
stick
the
growth
in
two
at
a
time
when
two
was
supposed
to
shed,
so
hopefully
that
clears
up.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
K
Yes,
yes,
not
in
a
Ricardo
brief,
but
essentially
my
understanding
is
even
though
there
was
population
growth
in
multiple
districts,
some
of
that
population
growth
actually
was
still
in
compliance
with
the
total
percentages
of
what
these
need
to
be
in,
and
so
yes,
those
some
precincts
or
districts
grew.
They
were
still
in
in
compliance
with
constitutional
law,
and
so
my
understanding
is
District.
8
was
one
of
those
and
so
I
didn't
need
or
require
any
changes.
But
that's
that's
where
I
was
coming
from.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
I
would
just
state
that
I'm
going
to
again
say
what
is
required.
We
are
required
to
comply
with
equal
population
under
Reynolds,
V
Sims,
the
Constitutional
requirement.
We
are
required
to
comply
with
the
Voting
Rights
Act
and
then
we
have
traditional
redistricting
principles,
but
there
is
no
prohibition
as
long
as
you
are
not
violating
constitutional
law.
There
is
no
prohibition
on
making
changes.
So
I
just
want
to
make
that
very
clear
for
the
record
councilor
Murphy.
You
now
have
the
floor.
F
Thank
you
as
the
vice
chair
and
member
of
this
committee,
and
obviously
a
member
of
the
whole
and
did
vote
no
last
week.
If
we
could
get
some
clarification
on
if
this
meeting
is
just
going
to
continue
on
talking
about
the
Constitutional
violations
or
if
we
are
going
to
be
putting
the
map
back
in
that's
one
of
the
questions
that
was
brought
up
before
the
recess
that
I
think
myself
and
the
public
have
questions
too
still,
and
also
knowing
that
in
the
last
process,
we
didn't
do
much
any
work
on
the
base
map
after
that.
F
I
know
that
overall
Moon
duchin
did
say
that
the
percentage
and
number
of
moves
overall
for
the
city
was
not
high
compared
to
what
most
other
cities
have
to
do
to
get
a
new
redistricting
map,
but
D3
had
over
45
percent
new
voters
when
nine
of
the
these
of
our
Council
voted
to
pass.
That
map
and
the
mayor
approved
it
that
yes,
along
the
border
of
D3
and
D4.
F
That's
where
we're
seeing
with
the
booth
the
Constitutional
violations,
but
overall
D3
would
have
had
45
brand
new
voters
if
that
map
had
stayed
so
I
do
want
to
make
that
state
that
there
was
a
disproportionate
amount
of
changes
in
one
District
that
we
definitely
I
I
want
to
make
sure
and
I
will
be
voting
against
if
a
map
makes
that
many
changes
to
just
one
District.
Thank
you,
chair.
E
E
District
Two
added
another
Precinct
out
in
the
Back
Bay,
while
decreasing
a
Precinct
of
public
housing
or
two
in
South
Boston.
So
we
we
really
can't
have
it
both
ways.
We
can't
say
it's:
it's
grown
significantly
in
in
oh
by
the
way
District
o,
you
have
to
add
more
population
as
well
or
add
another
Precinct,
so
I
just
want
to
set
the
record
straight
on
that
issue,
but
also
I,
know.
E
I,
know
the
my
colleagues
voted
last
week
to
place
this
map
writing
in
in
the
civil
rights
civil
rights
committee
and
I
know
that
was
brought
forward
by
Council
of
council,
Coletta
I
believe
and
just
want
to
ask
Council
Coletta.
Was
it
your
intention
that
the
map
writing
assignment
the
map
writing
process
would
would
take
place
in
civil
rights
or
or
what
was
your
intention
intention
on
that.
A
H
So
my
intention
was
specifically
related
to
this
docket.
So
what
was
brought
forth
by
I
think
it's
docket0928,
and
that's
that
that
was
my
intention
was
to
bring
the
civil
rights
committee
just
being
that
the
the
act
of
voting
is
a
sacred
civil
right
and
we
were
found
in
violation
of
it
and
just
looking
at
the
doj
where
the
Civil
Rights
division
is
charged
with
us
or
enforcements
of
provisions
of
the
wedding
right
rights
act.
That
was
my
intention
not.
E
Thank
you,
Council
I
I
was
under
the
impression
when
we,
when
we
did
it
last
Wednesday,
when
my
colleagues
placed
it
in
the
civil
rights
committee,
my
colleague
is
a
place
in
the
civil
rights
committee
to
redraw
the
map
in
that
committee
Council.
Well,
what
is
your?
What
is
your
opinion
on
that?
You
were
part
of
the
discussion.
A
I
L
Had
the
question
been
proposed
for
you,
the
chair
of
civil
rights,
to
be
leading
redistricting,
that
that
would
be
a
whole
different
conversation.
So
I
didn't
sign
up
to
have
redistricting
being
LED
under
civil
rights.
It
was
just
the
legal
memo
that
was
presented
to
us
and
that's
what
I
had
agreed
upon
in
terms
of
my
vote.
So
there's
a
lot
of
confusion
there.
L
L
K
That's
why
we're
discussing
it
I
voted
to
make
sure
that
it
was
here
so
that
we
could
have
a
conversation
about
civil
rights
and
this
order
and
I
believe
that
Council
Louisiana
was
the
best
equipped
one
to
do
that.
That's
why
I
I
made
that
vote,
but
I
think
when
we're
talking
about
where
the
rest
of
the
redistricting
dockets
go.
That
is
an
unsettled
question,
and
so
that
is
that
is
where
I
am
on,
that
simply
put
I.
K
D
D
Region,
sorry
to
the
civil
rights
committee,
am
I
now
hearing
that
colleagues
now
want
to
move
that
matter.
Back
to
redistricting
I
mean
you
can't
make
this
up.
Madam
chair,
so
I
just
want
to
know.
We
had
an
assignment
to
the
community
on
the
whole,
where
it
rightfully
should
have
been
based
on
our
rules.
D
City
council
rules,
we
list
the
Committees
and
we
list
the
jurisdiction
of
those
committees
and
with
those
committees
oversee
clearly,
this
matter
should
be
in
the
committee
in
the
hold
this
body
through
a
parliamentary
maneuver,
moved
it
to
the
civil
rights
committee
and
then
less
than
one
week
later
same
members
or
some
members
want
to
now
move
it
like
please.
This
is
through
the
chair.
This
is
exactly
why
this
body
is
becoming
an
embarrassment.
We
have
to
pull
it
together.
D
E
A
K
I
just
want
to
be
clear
about,
like
oh
sorry,
what
happened
on
Wednesday
and
where
we
are
right
now,
since
I
was
there
and
I
also
spoke
and
I
said
that
redistricting
should
be
in
redistricting
literally
on
the
floor.
But
when
we're
talking
about
a
legal
memo,
nobody
is
asking
that
this
docket
be
reassigned.
In
fact,
I'm
not
even
sure
we
can
reassign
this
docket
on
Council
rules,
but
we
have
dockets
on
redistricting
that
are
going
to
be
coming
before
this
body
on
Wednesday
those
dockets.
K
The
council,
president,
can
put
in
an
appropriate
committee,
which
I
think
everybody
here
understands
that
redistrict
things
should
go
into
a
redistricting
committee,
whereas
this
is
a
argument
that
folks
had
about
whether
or
not
a
civil
rights
committee
should
be
discussing
a
constitutional
court
order
about
a
civil
rights
violation.
This
was
not
a
situation
where
we
can
pre-say
all
dockets
coming
that
say:
redistricting
now
go
to
civil
rights,
that
is
a
and
this
and
I'm
not
saying
that
they
won't
when
I'm
saying
is.
K
That
is
a
decision
that
still
hasn't
been
made
and
so
on
Wednesday,
when
it's
before
the
body.
The
council
president,
like
on
any
other
council
meeting
day,
will
make
a
determination
about
where
he
himself
believes
it
is
best
to
send
those
dockets.
But
that
is
not
we
don't
that's,
not
a
decision.
That's
already
been
made.
K
What's
the
decision
that's
already
been
made
is
on
this
docket,
which
relates
to
this
legal
memo,
which
is
separate,
and
apart
from
all
of
the
redistricting
dockets
that
are
still
coming
before
this
body
on
Wednesday,
and
so
the
council
president
knows-
or
maybe
not,
maybe
you
make
those
determinations
closer
to
that
time,
but
you
know
where
you
would
like
to
send
those
redistricting
documents
and,
and
ultimately,
what
I'm
saying
is
there's
parliamentary
procedures
to
move
these
things.
I
am
not
aware
of
any
conversations
that
have
happened
to
that
effect.
K
What
I'm
simply
saying
is
that
what
was
voted
on
was
a
legal
memo,
not
the
redistricting
plans,
not
redistricting
maps,
not
redistricting
process,
and
to
try
to
equate
this
with
dockets
that
haven't
even
been
properly
put
before
the
body.
Yet
are
two
different:
things
have
not
been
assigned,
have
not
gone
anywhere,
which
is
why
again
I
agree
with
counselor
Coletta,
when
the
focus
of
this
was
specifically
on
this
legal
order.
K
But
what
happens
here
after
regarding
redistricting
is
still
very
much
up
to
the
council
president
and
up
to
the
floor
on
Wednesday
as
to
where
those
get
assigned,
because
they
again
they
are
not
properly
before
the
body
today,
and
so
that
is
simply
what
I'm
saying
and
then
to
just
be
clear.
I
still
think,
that's
it
I,
don't
know
that
anybody
here
can
speak
authoritatively
on
where
or
how
you
will
make
a
decision
or
where
and
how
they
will
make
decisions.
K
I
am
simply
saying
we
should
stay
in
the
present,
which
is
this
docket
was
sent
here
for
a
reason
it
was
sent
here.
So
we
could
discuss
the
judge's
order,
but
I
think
frankly,
what
has
been
discussed
has
been
exactly
what
I
would
want
to
see
discussed
in
this
issue
in
this
situation.
But
what
comes
out
of
this,
which
is
essentially
it's
a
court
order
that
mandates
a
new
drawing
process,
Simply
Having
the
court
order
that
says
there
has
to
be
a
new
map
process.
K
Doesn't
it's
not
a
golden
ticket
to
writing
the
new
map
process?
Those
Maps
still
have
to
get
submitted.
They
still
have
to
get
assigned
where
they
get
assigned.
We
have
a
redistricting
committee
to
my
understanding.
You
have
not
stripped
the
redistricting
committee
chair
of
her
responsibilities,
and
so,
if
you
are
making
a
determination
that
redistricting
dockets
are
not
going
to
redistricting,
that
is
still
something
that
is
up
in
the
air.
But
frankly
that
is
what
this
amounts
to.
K
This
docket
specifically
dealing
with
the
legal
matters
at
hand
and
what
the
legal
opinion
was
that
councilor
exam
was
the
best
chair
to
hear
and
do
what
she
needs
to
do
here
and
I
would
also
just
say
that
there
are
certainly
members
who
were
involved
in
that
lawsuit
in
this
committee.
I,
don't
know
that
that's
disqualifying
or
not,
but
simply
can't
to
say
that
there
weren't
is
not
actually
factual,
I,
don't
think
it's
a
disqualifying
aspect.
What
I'm
simply
saying
is
the.
A
F
I
appreciate
that-
and
a
lot
has
been
said
since
I
first
turned
on
my
light,
so
I
feel
like
I
have
a
lot
of
different
things
to
say
absolutely
I
was
here
last
week
and
what
I
saw
happen.
We
had
lots
of
recesses
that
we
started
the
meeting
late
and
I
was
under
the
impression
that
we
were
well
first
off
I
just
want
to
say
you
said
several
times:
councilor
Arroyo,
that
wherever
the
president
puts
this
is
where
we
as
a
body
should
respect.
F
The
rules.
The
committee
of
the
whole
is
the
committee
which
shall
concern
itself
with
any
litigation
involving
the
council
and
all
other
matters
referred
to
it.
Council
of
Flaherty
at
last
week's
meeting
stood
up
to
read
that
to
make
sure
we
understood
that
if
we
were
moving
this
out
of
the
committee
of
the
whole
to
a
different
committee
that
we
would
be
putting
it
in
a
committee
that
it
probably
shouldn't
be
in
to
rewrite
the
math,
the
reason
I
voted,
no
wasn't
because
I
don't
believe
that
this
is
a
civil
right.
F
Voting
is
a
civil
rights
issue.
Absolutely
I
was
Voting,
no
because
I
believed
it
should
have
stayed
in
the
committee
of
the
whole
and
then
assigned
to
the
redistricting.
There
was
words
in
murmas
that
if
it
went
to
redistricting
that
maybe
the
president
was
going
to
change
the
chair,
which
he
absolutely
has
the
right
to
do,
committee
changes
at
any
time.
So
I
feel
like
we're
now
back.
F
I
can
only
speak
for
myself,
but
I.
Absolutely
with
the
little
time
we
had
did
not
think
we,
as
a
body
were
going
to
one
have
meetings
to
discuss
this
temporary
injunction
and
that
we
would
separately
have
meetings
to
write
a
new
map.
So
I
think
we
need
to
figure
that
out
before
this
meeting
heads
going
forward
and
be
ready
for
Wednesday's
meeting.
Thank.
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
just
want
to
take
a
moment
before
I
share
my
remarks
to
remind
my
Council
colleagues
of
rule,
38
I
think
I
understand
that
people
are
incredibly
very
passionate,
but
let's
be
mindful
of
personalities.
I
for
one
am
not
embarrassed
and
I
think
the
only
thing
that
makes
this
body
and
is
an
embarrassment
is
US,
creating
a
scandal
where
there
is
not.
We
are
having
a
perfectly
normal
conversation
about
where
future
dockets
are
going
to
go
to.
Nobody,
there's
nothing
as
scandalous.
You
can't
you
can't
make
this
up.
J
You
can't
write
this
anywhere.
That
kind
of
behavior
is
what
gives
the
perception
to
the
public
that
we
are
somehow
out
of
control
and
not
figuring
out
how
to
work
together,
and
that
behavior
is
not
coming
from
anybody
here.
There
was
a
docket
that
was
assigned.
There
are
questions
about
what
the
assignment
met,
which
we
are
asking.
J
Nobody
here
is
backtracking
and
just
and
I
think
that
that's
obvious
that
we
are
not
asking
to
reassign
this
and
by
saying
that,
on
the
record,
we
are
confusing
the
public
and
creating
a
scandal
where
there
is
not
any
and
so
I
want
us
to
be
very
careful.
I
I
am
I
am
not
embarrassed.
Please
speak
for
yourself.
J
I
think
that
this
body
is
perfect,
having
a
perfect
conversation
about
what
happens
to
the
dockets
that
are
going
to
come
before
us
in
the
future,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
forward,
because
I
know
that
this
is
a
really
passionate
conversation,
but
I'm
not
going
to
be
made
to
feel
as
if
we
are
somehow
being
inconsiderate
and
I'm.
Also
not
going
to
have
us
confuse
the
public
and
create
a
perception
of
dysfunction
when
there
is
not
any.
A
I
will
state
that
it
is
I'm,
not
sure
that
we
are
going
to
resolve
the
issues
that
folks
talk
about
are
mentioning
today.
I
am
the
chair
of
the
civil
rights
committee
and
this
docket
was
assigned
to
me,
which
included
an
order
from
the
federal
court
to
draw
a
new
map,
and
so
I
believed,
based
on
the
Move
by
councilor,
Colette
and
councilor
Worrell
last
week,
and
the
vote
of
824
that
it
would
be
within
the
purview
as
councilor
Royal.
A
So
eloquently
stated
that
I
am
here
doing
the
best
that
I
can
as
an
attorney
with
redistricting
experience
overseeing
this
process.
That
I
would
also
be
doing
the
line,
drawing
experience
which
the
line
drawing
process,
which
is
why,
as
you
will,
have
noted,
I
filed
a
map,
a
proposal,
a
talk,
a
jumping
off
point
for
us
to
have
these
discussions.
Obviously,
ultimately,
this
was
in
the
purview
of
the
president,
but
just
to
make
it
clear
what
my
presence
is
doing
here.
A
Are
my
voters
that
I
would
do
my
best
to
put
forward
a
map
where
we
could
all
agree
where
we
could
all
agree
on
the
lines
and
all
agree
on
what
the
court
found
as
a
violation
where
we
could
all
agree
and
look
at
the
changes
that
we
made
from
the
Baseline
map
to
the
final
map
to
inform
the
work
that
we
need
to
do
to
cure
the
con.
The
potential
constitutional
violation
at
the
border
of
three
and
four
so
I
just
want
to
make
that
very
clear
city
council.
E
Thank
you,
madam
Sharon.
This
will
be.
My
last
comment
on
the
subject
is:
is
my
intention
is
to
put
this
in
civil
rights
I
hope
we
all
can
agree
that
on
Wednesday,
when,
when
there
are
maps
that
they
will
go
into
the
civil
rights
committee
and
that
Council
of
luigien
as
chair
will
will
conduct
those
hearings
in
Council
Murphy
is
vice
chair,
I
think
what
the
residents
are
now
looking
for
is
leadership
from
us
as
a
body
in
in
no
drama
no
personalities.
E
Putting
all
that
aside
and
doing
what
is
best
for
the
residents
of
Boston
in
giving
a
little
taking
a
little
compromising
listening
being
respectful,
I
think
that's
what
residents
want
us
to
do
and
again
I
I
think
we
all
should
we
also
should
be.
We
should
also
acknowledge
the
important
role
mayor.
Wu
has
provided
critical
leadership
on
this
issue
at
times
when
we
needed
it.
E
A
You
city,
council,
president
Flynn
I,
am
going
to
take
these
last
two
comments
from
Council,
Mejia
and
counselor
Baker
and
then
I'm
going
to
turn
to
public
testimony,
because
you
have
been
waiting
so
patiently
again
apologize
for
the
length
of
this
meeting
and
the
not.
It
was
not
two
hour
recess.
It
was
about
45
minutes
to
an
hour,
but
it
was.
It
was
not
two
hours,
but
so
I
I
want
to
respect
the
public
that
showed
up.
So
it
comes
with
me
here.
You
have
the.
L
Floor,
thank
you,
chair
and
I.
Just
want
to
be
super
mindful
that
tone
and
delivery
is
really
important
and
so
I'm
not
going
to
react
to
criticisms
of
like
our
Behavior,
because
I
think
we
have
been
in
our
best
behavior
today,
president
Flynn,
but
I,
but
I
do
want
to
make
note
of
the
fact
that
when
I
voted
to
have
the
legal
memo
go
into
your
committee,
it
was
under
very
specific
understanding
that
it
was
just
a
legal
memo
and
it
was
never
really
made
clear
right
if
you're
going
to
switch
it
up.
L
It
just
feels
a
little
bit
kind
of
like
a
bait
and
switch
here
and
I
don't
feel
like
that
is
with
good
faith
and
good
intention.
So
because
there's
so
much
uncertainty
around
the
specifics
of
where
this
is
going
to
end
up
I,
don't
think
it's
worth
our
time
and
energy
to
continue
to
go
back
and
forth
until
Wednesday,
when
we
can
revisit
the
conversation
and
vote
with
an
understanding
of
what
it
is
that
we
are
actually
committing
to
so.
The
legal
memo
under
Civil
Rights
was
what
I
agreed
to
thank
you.
Councilmania.
N
So
chair,
you
had
mentioned
that
you
had
filed
a
map
that
I
that
I
haven't
seen
yet
so
is
that
what
we're
going
to
jump
off
on
I'm
at
like
I?
Just
don't
get
it
I,
don't
understand
it.
The
judge
we
were
out
of
compliance
on
population
that
base
map
got
us
very,
very
close,
I'm
concerned
that
now
your
map-
probably
I
without
looking
at
it,
do
you
know
how
many
changes
you
have
for
district
three,
because
everybody's
concerned,
two
precincts
had
two
precincts
there,
12
or
14
precincts.
For
me,
that's
a
lot.
N
45
of
my
population
are
district
yeah.
There
weren't
that
many
changes
in
District
One
in
District
9
in
District
8
in
District
Seven,
nothing.
They
were
all
between
three
and
four
so,
like
maybe
my
question
is
straight
out
here:
are
the
residents
of
District
three
going
to
get
a
fair
Shake
on
this
one
because
we
did
not
get
it
in
the
last
one,
I
was
I'm
on
the
line,
drawing
body,
not
a
single
person
on
this
body
asked
me
my
opinion,
not
a
single
reporter
from
from
every
place
in
Boston
asking
my
opinion
about
this.
N
This
whole
thing
that
happened,
so
my
question
to
you
is:
is
District
3
going
to
get
a
straight
shot
on
this
one
and
that
straight
shot
is
by
starting
with
the
Baseline
map
and
then
really
negotiating
what
we?
What
we
should
do
to
cure
the
population
not
to
go
in
with
political
aspirations,
what
we
did
the
whole
time
political
aspirations?
Oh,
if
we
did
this,
we
could
possibly
it
was
all
sneaky
and
underhanded
is
District.
Three
gonna
get
a
straight
shot
a
straight
deal
on
this.
You
don't
have
to
answer
that.
A
Baker
I
will
respond
to
your
question.
The
reason
that
we
are
here
is
because
of
the
federal
court
order,
the
order
to
us
to
draw
a
new
map
because
of
a
potential
constitutional
violation
where
rates
predominated
without
meeting
a
compelling
government
interest
at
the
border
of
three
and
districts
three
and
four.
So
we
have
to
cure
that
deficiency.
In
doing
so,
it
will
have
a
domino
effect
on
other
districts,
which
is
why
it
is
important
to
look
at
the
council.
Baker
I
am
speaking.
A
A
Disagree:
I
want
to
thank
my
Council
college
for
their
comments.
I
want
to
thank
city
council,
president
Flynn,
who
noted
his
intention
moving
forward,
and
we
will
continue
this
conversation.
We
need
to
act
with
all
deliberate
speed
because
we
have
elections
in
September
and
November,
and
the
elections
department
needs
to
prepare
so
that
we
can
so
that
we
don't
have
to
move
the
dates,
and
so
the
goal
here
today
was
to
talk
about
proposals.
A
Don't
believe
that
there's
an
open
meeting
violation
happening
out
of
abundance
of
caution.
We
will
wait
to
fully
vet
the
proposals
that
are
before
the
body
and
we
had
a
productive
session
where
we
heard
from
what
I
heard
from
my
colleagues
about
their
priorities
and
about
how
we
respond
to
this
Federal
order
in
drawing
a
new
map.
So
I
want
to
thank
all
my
contact.
Colleagues
for
this
productive
meeting.
I
now
want
to
turn
to
members
of
the
public
for
any
testimony.
I
have
the
sign-in
sheet
here
and
first
on.
A
O
Hi
everyone,
my
name-
is
Sophie
Mark,
Ing
and
I'm,
testifying
today
on
behalf
of
the
Chinese
Progressive
Association.
We
are
community-based
organization
that
has
been
working
with
the
Chinese
community
in
the
Greater
Boston
area
for
over
45
years.
Over
that
time,
our
community
has
been
fighting
for
its
voice
to
be
heard.
One
of
those
ways
has
been
through
increasing
our
voting
power
because
we
know
the
importance
of
community
voice.
O
We
also
know
the
importance
of
redistricting
and
the
power
it
has
to
amplify
and
silence
the
voices
of
communities,
and
you
can
see
how
many
people
from
our
community
came
out
today.
We
know
this
is
a
really
important
issue
and
we've
been
sitting
through
this
hearing
for
three
hours,
because
we
really
know
that
this
can
affect
their
community
in
a
positive
way.
O
O
O
O
Additionally,
the
Chinese
community
in
Chinatown
has
a
long
history
of
collaboration
with
communities
of
color
in
the
South
End,
from
working
together
to
fight
highway
expansion
in
the
1960s
to
fighting
the
development
of
The,
Bu,
biolab
and
gentrification.
Today,
as
well
as
the
creation
of
the
castle.
O
We
believe
that
is
important
to
unite
these
communities
in
Chinatown
and
the
south
end.
So
we
had
the
opportunity
to
strengthen
our
community
voice.
Chinatown
has
historically
been
a
part
of
District
2,
which
is
largely
the
South
Boston
District.
So
I
have
a
couple
Maps
today,
which
we
also
have
shared
in
previous
redistricting
hearings,
but
we
really
want
to
emphasize
the
ways
in
which
our
community
voice
can
be
lost.
If
portions
of
the
south
end
or
Chinatown
are
moved
out
of
District
2.
O
So
this
first
map
is
from
before
the
last
redistricting
cycle,
so
you
have
the
number
of
registered
voters
and
the
voter
turnout
compared
between
South
Boston
and
then
Chinatown
south
end.
So
you
can
see.
54
of
registered
voters
were
in
South
Boston,
but
the
turnout
is
much
higher
at
61
percent
and
then
you
can
see
in
in
Chinatown
self
and
they
make
up
46
of
the
registered
voters,
but
only
39
of
the
turnout.
So
you
can
see
there's
a
big
imbalance.
O
So
during
the
last
redistricting
cycle
there
were
some
changes
that
were
made
and
South
Boston
went
to
around
half
of
the
registered
voters
at
49.8
percent,
but
still
because
of
their
really
high
turnout.
They
made
almost
60
percent
of
the
turnout
in
the
district,
whereas
Chinatown
only
made
up
38
of
the
the
district.
O
So
under
some
new
proposed
Maps
we
don't
have
data
on
turnout
yet,
but
you
can
see
that
the
percent
of
voting
age
voters
would
be
up
to
63
percent
of
South
Boston
in
District
2,
and
you
can
only
guess
how
much
higher
the
turnout
would
be
and
that
really
would
decrease.
The
amount
of
our
voice
is
heard
in
this
district,
and
this
isn't
anything
personal
against
our
counselor.
O
So
we
know
that,
as
maps
are
being
drawn
and
filed,
we
ask
that
the
Chinese
Community
not
be
divided
further
and
be
unified
in
Chinatown
in
the
South
End,
so
that
includes
some
precincts
in
Chinatown
and
downtown,
including
3,
8,
3,
12,
314
and
5-1,
and
then
from
the
south
end
9181
and
eight
two.
Thank
you.
O
P
B
P
B
When
I
moved
to
the
South
End
I
also
learned
that
South
End,
just
like
Chinatown,
was
impacted
by
gentrification
and
drastic
increase
in
property
values
and
a
lot
of
people
were
forced
out
in
the
80s
and
90s.
There
are
many
African-Americans
Latin,
Americans
and
Chinese
living
in
the
community,
and
now
they
were
only
able
to
live
in
subsidized
housing
in
the
area.
P
P
P
B
B
Q
Good
afternoon,
I
am,
with
my
brothers
and
sisters
from
Chinatown
I'd,
go
a
step
further
to
say
that
your
community
was
divided
for
a
highway
that
was
never
built.
Our
community
was
divided
and
torn
down
for
a
highway.
That's
never
built,
and
one
of
the
best
things
that
was
said
here
was
dead
by
councilor
Reardon,
who
is
not
here,
but
by
the
grace
of
God
I
was
able
to
see
her
on
her
way
out.
Q
We
are
working
under
an
acre,
sorry,
I'm,
a
teacher
I
should
know
this
Antiquated
system,
A
system
that
was
put
together
a
hundred
years
ago
when
you
didn't
have
a
voice.
I
didn't
have
a
voice.
Many
people
in
here
didn't
have
a
voice.
An
18th
century,
Enlightenment
philosopher,
said
reality
creates
its
own
structures.
Q
The
reality
is,
this
city
has
changed,
so
staying
within
the
same
structures
will
create
a
natural
schism.
We
all
want
the
same
things,
but
let's
be
real
here,
regardless
of
color
of
the
elected
official.
We
know
elected
officials
protect
their
own
term,
they
protect
their
Turf
because
they
want
to
stay
in
office.
That's
a
reality.
That's
been
here,
so
that's
the
reality
that
we
have
to
deal
with.
Q
Q
Madam
chairwoman,
but
I'm
going
to
tell
you
people
that
look
like
me,
people
that
look
like
them
have
been
compromising.
Since
we've
been
in
this
city,
we've
been
compromised
from
Charlestown
to
the
North
End
to
Beacon
Hill,
to
the
South
End.
To
now
where
we
are,
if
every
counselor
represented
everyone
in
their
District,
equally
barely
listen
to
their
voice,
it
wouldn't
matter
where
the
lines
are
I'd
be
anxious
to
have
a
counselor,
that's
distinguished,
and
that
fix
up
I'd
be
anxious.
A
Pardon
me,
as
a
chair
I'm,
going
to
interrupt
this.
This
is
public
testimony.
You
direct
your
testimony
to
me.
Yes,
not
to
any
other
person
on
the
city
council.
This
is
not
interactive.
This
is
an
opportunity
for
you
to
share
public
testimony
with
me,
which
is
usually
limited
to
two
minutes,
but
I
understand
that
this
hearing
has
gone
long
and
I.
Thank
you
for
indulging
us
in
your
patience,
so
I'm
letting
you
speak
for
longer.
Okay,
I
require
you
to
speak
to
the
chair,
I
appreciate.
Q
It
is
not
interactive,
I
appreciate
it.
I
appreciate
it.
I
respect
that,
but
I
was
addressed.
First
I
was
addressed
first
by
the
council.
Direct
few
comments.
Okay,
thank
you.
So
what
I
would
like
to
see
here
is
what
counselor
said
Arroyo
had
stated:
if
we
don't
make
a
movement,
it's
going
to
be
deja
vu
all
over
again,
the
plaintiffs
are
going
to
become
the
defendants
and
I
am
tired.
Q
R
R
S
A
S
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
I
I'm,
going
to
just
I
appreciate
the
chairs
comments
that
whatever
changes
have
to
be
made
to
rectify
the
Constitutional
violation.
We'll
have
the
domino
effect
and
my
concern
and
John's
concern
is
that
that
could
turn
out
to
be
a
very
detailed
laborious
process
at
which
you
would
want
to
have
Community
process
and
I
believe
that
you
are
up
against
the
timeline
and
I.
S
Don't
believe
that
there
will
be
adequate
time
for
Community
process
and
consideration
of
an
unintended
consequences
and
I
would
just
add
that
I
think
it's
most
important
for
the
council
to
get
the
map
right
and
if
that
means
moving
the
election
I
think
you
should
consider
that,
because
sometimes
a
constitutional
violation
means
a
guilty.
Person
goes
free
and
sometimes
it
means
you
might
have
to
move.
An
election.
I
just
think
is
a
member
of
the
public.
I.
S
Don't
have
a
lot
of
confidence
after
listening
to
the
hearing
today
that
the
council
will
be
able
to
get
to
the
substance
of
what
needs
to
be
done,
because
so
much
time
has
already
been
expended
on
just
the
process,
and
it
is
not
your
deadline,
but
it
is
important
for
the
public
to
have
confidence
in
what
the
city
council
does
and
please
get
it
right,
even
if
it
means
moving
the
election.
Thank
you.
A
I
will
say
that,
as
the
chair
of
this
committee,
when
I
accepted
this
docket
into
my
committee
last
week,
it
was
under
the
belief
that
I
would
be
drawing
the
lines
and
I
will
state
that
I
was
not
jumping
up.
Saying
me
me.
Let
me
draw
the
lines,
but
as
an
attorney
and
as
someone
who
has
practice
in
this
area
and
as
someone
who
was
encouraged
by
my
colleagues
to
step
in
and
Lead
here.
A
That
is
what
I
am
attempting
to
do,
but
I
think
it
is
also
evident
everyone
who
is
here
for
why
I
support
independent
redistricting,
because
this
it
turns
into
factions
and
it
turns
into
folks
protecting
their
own
interests
and
it
becomes
a
difficult
and
laborious
process.
Even
when
you
have
a
federal
court
order,
instructing
you
on
what
to
do,
and
so
I
want
to
make
it
very
clear
that
it
is
my
intent
and
my
hope
to
defuse
the
confusion
that
exists
in
the
public
and
to
get
this
done
so
this
docketism
in
my
committee.