Cook County Board Redistricting Committee Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2012

“OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE 17 PRESENT COMMISSIONERS HAPPY AND ABLE TO BE RE-ELECTED FROM THE NEW DISTRICTS”

The first meeting of the 2010 Redistricting Committee began on this sad note and with a violation of the Board’s own rules specifying that public comment is to be taken prior to any votes on agenda items. This statement from Vice Chair Peter Silvestri clearly also expressed the sentiments of Chairman Deborah Sims and many of the other Commissioners present at this first meeting of the 2010 Redistricting Committee which is composed of all 17 Commissioners. Commissioner Schneider later in the meeting did state that the goal was to draw 17 districts that represent the interests of the citizens of Cook County, not the members of this Board. Sadly, he appeared to be in the minority with this sentiment. 

The statements made by most of the Commissioners at this meeting were a far cry from the earlier ones made about how this Committee would have a much better process than that followed by the State Legislature and Chicago City Council in redrawing districts. [See the Feb. 3 observer report for the Feb. 1 Board meeting.]

The Committee’s agenda was to deal with

(1) a resolution establishing redistricting procedures,

(2) a proposed contract hiring Election Data Services to provide redistricting software and support services to redraw districts ($521,850),

(3) a proposed contract to hire Peter A. Creticos, LTD., to provide support and advice to the Committee in redrawing the districts ($100,000),

(4) a letter engaging the law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland to provide legal services in connection with the redistricting, with Judson Miner acting as chief counsel ($35,000),

(5) a letter engaging Grasso Bass to provide legal services as co-counsel ($12,000),

(6) a letter engaging Schirott, Luetkenhans & Garner to provide legal services as co-counsel ($12,000), and

(7) a letter engaging Velazquezrodriguez LLC to provide legal services as co-counsel ($12,000).

Altogether, these contracts total almost $700,000. It was stated that this amount is within the amount for redistricting costs in the 2012 budget. Laura Lechowicz-Felicione, legal counsel to President Preckwinkle, who is obviously also providing services to this Committee, stated that this total is less than that spent 10 years ago when redistricting was last done.

However, Commissioner Suffredin began the meeting saying that he was going to vote against each of these matters because this Committee had failed to follow the County’s procurement procedures by not issuing a request for proposal (RFP) for the data and mapping services or having a request for qualifications (RFQ) for the law firms. Ms. Lechowicz-Felicione said that bypassing the normal procurement procedures was legal because the contracts were for sole source procurements of specialized services and the law firms were selected for their experience. Commissioner Suffredin did not dispute that the process was legal, but said that bypassing the procurement procedures was bad public policy for this redistricting process.

Commissioner Sims stated that her goal was to complete redistricting by the end of June 2012, saying that if

the city could complete its redistricting in 2 months, surely the County could. (Of course, the public wasn’t allowed to see, let alone comment, on the map that the City Council approved. Even many of the City Council members didn’t see the map until shortly before the vote was taken.)

Commissioners Beavers said he was unhappy with the selection of Judson Minor as the chief counsel for redistricting. Comm. Beavers said that Mr. Minor had been involved in a prior redistricting which resulted in a district from which Beavers could not get elected. Commissioner Fritchey objected to the fact that none of the 4 law firms would represent “his interests,” indicating that they had been chose to represent the Republican, African-American, and Latino interests.

Violation of the Board’s Own Procedures

The Committee then took a roll call vote on the first item, approving the resolution establishing procedures. This was in violation of the ordinance which states that public comment on agenda items is to be taken prior to taking any votes. Both Cynthia Schilsky, President of the League of Women Voters of Cook County, and George Blakemore, a concerned citizen, had signed up to speak with the Secretary to the Board prior to the start of the meeting. This observer was able to get Comm. Gainer’s attention after the vote, and she immediately raised the question about public comment. At that point, Ms. Schilsky and Mr. Blakemore were allowed to speak.

Ms. Schilsky’s prepared written comments all dealt with the resolution establishing procedures that had just been voted on. Most of these comments were directed to establishing additional procedures to allow the public to review and weigh in on proposed maps at different steps before the Committee and then the Board would vote on a final map. Ironically, this Committee did not even allow comments prior to approving the procedures which only provide for public hearings apparently prior to May 1, the deadline for the public to provide suggested maps. The written comments also took issue with such an early deadline for the public. If Chairman Sims’ desire for completion of the entire process by the end of June turns out to be the reality, then clearly the public will have little opportunity to review or comment on the map ultimately approved by the Board.

Ms. Schilsky told the Committee that after hearing what had been said thus far by the Commissioners, she was not going to summarize her written comments as she had planned. Instead, she told the Committee how distressed she was with the sentiment that the purpose of the redistricting process was to “make the Commissioners happy.” She said that the public was cynical about the political process, and those voting or otherwise following and taking part in the political process were becoming fewer and fewer. What had thus far gone on at this meeting only reinforced that cynicism and disengagement. She also questioned why the Committee was trying to hurry the process (thereby limiting the chance of the public to be involved). The elections for Commissioner will not take place until 2014.

Mr. Blakemore applauded Ms. Schilsky and the League for her comments and reiterated much of the same sentiments.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the remaining agenda items, approving all of them. In the presence of this observer, Commissioner Silvestri did come up to Ms. Schilsky afterwards and state that he would be happy to meet with her and discuss her comments and suggestions for additional procedures.

--Submitted by Priscilla Mims