Charter Amendments--Commissions

 Charter Measures PI, PE, PO

The Commissions

When the Charter Review Commission (CRC) did their work, they looked at perceived problems in the city and solutions that might be available via the city's charter. Prior to the 2010 CRC and in the decade subsequent, we had heard calls from the community for more transparency in the areas of Police Oversight and council and city staff ethics. In 2010 they proposed new commissions (as there are in many other cities) to address these issues. So the 2020 CRC looked at these issues, held hearings on what the citizens wanted and proceeded to write the amendments presented to the voters. In the interim, some on the city council saw the wisdom of these items and pushed to create them right away, not waiting for the voters to decide. So we had the formation of a Police Commission in 2020. The current commission is based largely on the work of the CRC but had to conform to the current charter so there are some differences between the two. Likewise, at the suggestion of the CRC, the city created an independent redistricting commission to draw the new district lines after the 2020 census. Below I will discuss the differences in the commissions being voted on and those that are currently on the books.

PI: Independent Redistricting Commission

This is currently in the news a lot. Currently, the city of Los Angeles' redistricting is being reconsidered in the light of the Nury Martinez, Kevin DeLeon, Gil Cedillo racist comments. They are looking at creating a Citizen's Redistricting Commission (IRC). Something the current city council has done.

While the state created an IRC prior to the 2010 census, the idea has taken some time to gain traction at the city or school district levels. The CRC discussed some of the political issues which had lead to widely out of balance districts (some over 10% out of balance--that is, not having equal population). We had gone about 30 years without redrawing the districts while development had shifted population centers drastically. PLUS, Federal and State laws had come into effect regarding gerrymandering which weren't there when the districts were last redrawn.

The CRC, working with our city attorney legal expert, looked at a framework created by Common Cause for IRCs across the nation. Because we would not be able to put anything on a ballot prior to the 2022 election, we took our research and draft proposal to the city and suggested that, for transparency and to take it out of the "political" sphere, that they create such a commission by ordinance. They were receptive and the result was the commission that drew the new lines now in effect. However, because they were working under the current charter, that commission, while steps away from the council doing this themselves, was still a commission appointed by the council and subject to political and other influences.

Under the proposed charter amendment, the commission would have more autonomy and be more transparent. It would not be appointed by the council but by a 3-member group made up of a retired judge, law, government, political science or public policy professor, and a citizen, selected either by the Ethics Commission (if there is one) or by the city clerk and city attorney. They would select one commissioner from each district (6) as well as an alternate for each chosen commissioner. Alternates would be expected to participate in all meetings as non-voting members until or unless there is a vacancy at which time they might be moved onto the full commission.

PE: Ethics Commission

This one is pretty straight forward. For many years we've been hearing that Pomona needs a commission to look at ethics and ensure that council and city staff are adhering to the ethics policies and treating everyone fairly and equally. This amendment creates section 807 in the charter, which reads in full:

The Pomona City Council shall, by ordinance, establish an Ethics Commission which shall be responsible for: 

(a)   Monitoring and advising on applicable governmental ethics laws as set forth in State law, this Charter or City ordinance, regulation or policy, including but not limited to campaign finance limits and disclosure, nepotism, lobbying, conflict of interest and open meeting laws, to assure fairness, openness, honesty and integrity in City government, including compliance by the City of Pomona, its elected officials, officers, employees, boards and commissions with said laws, regulations or policies. 

(b)   Education and responding to issues regarding the aforementioned laws, regulations, and policies; and 

(c)   Impartial and effective administration and implementation of programs to accomplish the goals and purposes of the Commission as defined by this Section.”

PO: Police Oversight Commission

This is another case where the current city council took our draft amendment and created the commission pretty much as written by the CRC except that it had to conform to the current charter. THe main difference that this amendment would make would be that the commission would become part of the charter and could not be changed or eliminated without a vote of the electorate (you!). It would change the number of commissioners to 5 and they would not be appointed by individual councilmembers but would be appointed by a majority vote of the entire council. They would also be given subpoena powers.

The biggest concern we've heard is the issue of subpoena powers. It must be noted that this would not give the commission the power to subpoena police personnel records. Also there are provisions to ensure that commissioners do no abuse their powers or knowledge. Of all of the areas of the CRC, this was the most debated in the public meetings and had the most citizen participation.

 Next up              

A discussion of the three amendments which would potentially change the ways our city's government is formed and operates. These items are measures Primary Elections (PE), Campaign Finance (PC), Term Limits (PT), and a way to deal with the "safe seats" issue here in Pomona with Resign to Run (PR).

Then I will follow up with a synopsis of the election and discuss the fixes that are involved with PG.

Please feel free to leave comments below or on the facebook page that you've linked from and I'll try to answer any questions.

 By now you have probably gotten your mail in ballot for the November 8 election. AND, if you live in Pomona, you've seen that there are nine (9) local propositions on that ballot. Many have asked "why so many?"

Eight (8) of them came from the 2020 Pomona Charter Review Commission. Under the current charter, every 10 years the city shall appoint a commission to go over the charter and place changes that they feel are needed on the ballot for a vote of the people. As one of the seven appointees to that commission, I have a lot of knowledge about the items that were put on the ballot, why, what they will do, and what they are hoping to accomplish.

First, let me note that the last time that the charter was changed (amended) was now over 24 years ago. That was an era before widespread internet, email, and a whole raft of technological and legal changes which have made vast portions of our charter out dated, and in some cases, out of compliance with laws and court decisions. Ten years ago, the commission (on which I also served) tried to make a lot of these changes but were forced to put them all into one ballot measure. There was so much that it was on the losing side of the vote while some parts were very popular.

So what kinds of things are being proposed here?

Some are new commissions or codifying in the charter commissions which have been formed since 2020. These include: Police Oversight (PO), Ethics Commission (PE), Independent Redistricting Commission (PI).

There are a number of proposed changes to the way our city government is formed and operated, including: Primary Elections (PE), Campaign Finance (PC), Term Limits (PT), and a way to deal with the "safe seats" issue here in Pomona with Resign to Run (PR)

Then there is a proposal to FIX a lot of problems that have arisen since our charter was last amended (PG), things like how commissions are formed, powers of the charter review commission, fixing of typographic errors, acknowledgement of technologies such as zoom, internet, email, cell phones, etc. which weren't even things in the past. While I fully support most of the amendments, and am luke warm on others, I feel that it is MOST important that we pass PG. Again, this FIXES problems with the current charter and brings it into compliance with current state and federal laws in many areas.

In my next posting, I will go over the commission amendments, what they are, what they do and don't do, why many feel we need them, and the thoughts behind how they were written. The following one will be dedicated to the proposals for changes to the ways the city government is formed and operates. Then I will do one as a summary of the proposals and a little deeper look at measure PG.

I hope you will comment on your thoughts, but however you wish to vote, PLEASE VOTE by November 8. Rejecting a proposal is as important as approving a proposal. These were not DECIDED by the commission, but presented by them to you for YOUR DECISION. Please vote and let us and the city know how you want it run.

Final Maps for Pomona City

 Well, the final decennial map for the Pomona city council districts has been completed. We now know how the city will be split among the 6 council districts.

The new districts are likely to have impacts on the representation over the next 10 years. Some potential candidates might find themselves running in areas that they wouldn't have anticipated. Some will run in districts that look similar to what they looked like for the past 30 years. The final map will not appeal to everyone, but I congratulate the commission on coming up with a map that gives equal representation throughout the city without marginalizing any single group, nor giving extra representation to any special group.

So Let's Take a Look at The Maps

Here is the map showing the current (pre-redistricting) districts and how they lay out.

Here is the new, final district map which will be in effect prior to the November 2022 election.

You can immediately see that districts 5, 1 and 6 are significantly changed, while 2, 3, and 4 are changed but have a much more traditional feel. This is how the commission dealt with the fact that current D6 was 17% over populated and D5 was almost 23% under populated. In order to make D5 larger and D6 smaller, D1 in the middle had to grow to the north and shrink to the west and south.

How will this impact the city's political climate moving forward?

Below are my opinions, based on my view of the current situation and how these changes will impact it. Again, these are my opinions and I'm sure that others will have differing ideas.

District 1: Current Councilperson, John Nolte, next election, November 2024 (possible primary in March 2024*)

The potential for a major change in the focus for this district is fairly great. While it was originally a middle of the city from Garey to the western border district that included Cal-Poly, it now is the "Ganesha Hills" district and includes Fairplex, Ganesha Hills, Mountain Meadows and neighborhoods north of the 10 Freeway. The district goes from 81% Hispanic to 76%. The African American population there goes from 5% to 6%, The white population here goes from 6% to 10%.

Interestingly, household income will go from over 52% in the $50k and above brackets to 55% in those top brackets. Also it will increase from slightly lower than 50/50 renters to owners to a full 50/50 split.

Politically, current councilman Nolte will probably face some opposition from the well-moneyed area of the hills. Candidates from the old D6 from that area have included former councilwoman Debra Martin, Ron Vander Molen, Miranda Sheffield, and Eunice Russell, among others in recent years. If the voters pass the charter amendment to create primaries, there should be a robust number of candidates vying for this seat in March 2024. The current councilman will do well to reach out to the new residents of his district over the next 2 years. This also means that D6 councilperson Robert Torres will no longer represent the higher income areas of Ganesha Hills, and Mountain Meadows, nor will he represent the Fairplex, whose supporters and detractors mostly will be in D1. D1 also adds the Hacienda Historic District to its current Wilton Heights Historic District.

District 2: Current Councilperson, Victor Preciado, next election, November 2022 (this year)

D2 has been changed mostly along its northern and eastern edges. It has been changed to now include all of the area of downtown, which for decades has been split between 4 council districts. In the past the argument was made that the downtown (development) was too important to give to one councilmember. However, this meant that there was not a unified voice for the actual residents of the area. Early in the redistricting process, the downtown core was identified as a "community of interest," meaning that efforts should be made to allow them to elect a common voice for their area. This map accomplishes that goal.

This district has not changed a whole lot as far as population (there is a lot of business property in this district). It goes from 81% Hispanic to 80% Hispanic. 52% of household income is less than $50k. 62% of residents in D2 are renters.

Politically, this district is having an election this year in November. While there are almost always opposition candidates in this area, councilmember Preciado will find himself with a district where he is well-known. He will need to solidify his vision for downtown if he wishes to continue as the sole downtown councilperson.

District 3: Current Councilperson, Nora Garcia, next election, November 2022 (this year)

D3 is probably the least impacted by redistricting this year. The only changes are adding a small sliver north of the railroad tracks from D4 an squaring off its western border, adding a few blocks from D2.

The demographics of this district have not changed much. It looks pretty much the same as it did for the years that it was represented by councilmember Cristina Carrizosa. Councilmember Garcia should have an easier time with it as it will only include a very few new voters to the district.

District 4: Current Councilperson, Elizabeth Ontiveros-Cole, next election, November 2024 (possible primary in March 2024*)

D4 will see some moderate changes, maintaining its east, north, and western boundaries but losing some population in the south. D4 will lose its small portion of the downtown and some of Holt Avenue west of Towne. The Lincoln Park Historic District will remain completely in D4.

The demographics are almost completely unchanged. The only real major issue for the current councilperson may be the loss of the western end of the Holt corridor, originally D1, which will now be shared by D1, 2, & 5. Since Holt is mainly business and has few voting residents, its importance is mostly in how future councilmembers may view the development of the major corridor in their districts. Again, politically, with little change (exclusively loss of area) this district should not be a target for shifting population politics.

District 5: Current Councilperson, Steve Lustro, next election, November 2022 (this year)

D5 is the district which has been the recipient of the largest population shift as a result of this year's census. The census showed that it was underpopulated by about 22+%. This means that the commission had to add a large number of population to D5 in order to equalize the population among the 6 districts.

The current D5 has much of its western boundary east of the 57 Freeway, skirting Cal Poly. The new D5 will include all of Cal Poly and move the district to the western border of the city including a small area along the 10 freeway even crossing over for a few neighborhoods. The southern portions of the district remain intact. While still not ideal population, it is now only short by under 1%

The demographic shifts here are the most severe in the city. The Hispanic population of D5 goes from the current 46% (currently the only district in the city with less than 50% Hispanic) to 53%. However, if you count voting age population, it is still below 50% at 44%. D5 currently has the largest Asian population at 28%, which now drops to 23%, while still maintaining its rank of the highest. The education level has decreased somewhat going from 25% with a BA to 22%. D5 has the highest level of home ownership with 71% and only 29% renters. This is also the wealthiest district (by average incomes) with 53% of the population having a household income of more than $75k.

Politically, this district will see many new voters and the potential for candidates from different sectors. While this district has traditionally been the "Phillips Ranch" district, it now encompasses a much wider demographic. With its income levels, fundraising should not be an issue. While it still has the lowest Hispanic population among the 6 districts, they still maintain a wide plurality. However, this is also the largest Asian population and might encourage an Asian-American candidate to form alliances for a successful run. With the addition of the Cal Poly campus and the surrounding housing, candidates will need to shift focus from Phillips Ranch to other types of populations.

District 6: Current Councilperson, Robert Torres, next election, November 2024 (possible primary in March 2024*)

D6 had a major shift in population as well. With excess population of almost 18%, the commission had to find a way to reduce the population of the district. As mentioned, most of that was moved to D1 including all of Mountain Meadows, Ganesha Hills, and Fairplex, all at the western end of the current district. D6 still maintains the Yorba area across White from the Fairplex as well as Pomona Valley Hospital. The southern boundary remains at the 10 Freeway from Garey to the eastern city limit.

As for the demographics, the district goes from being nearly 18% overpopulated to being a little more than 2% underpopulated. However, the population figures don't take into account the large Gabriel development at Bonita and Harrison with its 312 units probably adding over 600 to the D6 population within the next few months. Income levels remain fairly consistent with the current D6 with 51% of the households in the district making over $75k.

Politically, this area will no longer be the Ganesha Hills district so we can look toward future candidates who are not as likely to have been as active in civic matters. Robert Torres should be able to solidify his support without the politically active and often well financed residents of Ganesha Hills. It will be interesting to see where future candidates come from. Will it be the somewhat active residents of the Yorba area or the residents who are often described as "Claremont adjacent" from the far north. Regardless it will likely be a major shift.

Conclusions

November will find many Pomona residents voting this year who were probably not expecting to have a city election until next year. Those who live in D1 that have been moved to D5 will face this issue. This will impact voters west of the 57 freeway and north of the 71 especially along the city's western limit. Additionally voters who were in D4 south of Holt and east of White will suddenly find themselves in D1 whose election is this year. In 2024, many will see different candidates than they might have expected, especially in D6 and D1.

Next time, I'm planning on writing about the redistricting process this year. Things we've learned, things we can improve and how to make the process better with an eye to both IF the charter amendment passes creating a permanent redistricting commission or if it fails, what the next steps by a future council might be.

* IF the charter amendment on the November 2022 ballot is approved by the voters, then there will be a primary election in 2024, if not, then the election will be in November.

Draft Maps

 I was asked to create a new post on the draft maps moving forward through the Pomona Independent Redistricting Commission. All maps can be viewed at drawpomona.org

Some Overview

Every 10 in years ending in 0, the US does a census for the purposes of equalizing representation. This includes all levels of government. At the federal level, different states handle it in different ways. In most jurisdictions, the governing body draws the lines which in some cases results in gerrymandering by politicians to favor their party. In California at the state level, we do this via an independent redistricting commission. This process has been followed also by LA County and the city of Pomona, who each have set up commissions to take it out of the hands of politicians. Some jurisdictions, such as PUSD, still have elected boards do the redistricting.

The original goal is to create roughly equal districts so that each elected official represents nearly the same number of residents (citizens, non-citizens, voters, non-voters, people of voting age and children). Additionally, newer laws require such things as an honest attempt to not divide "communities of interest." That is racial communities, neighborhoods, and other groups with cultural commonalities.

Pomona's Challenges

Ideally, each district would have the same number of residents as determined by the census. Pomona's ideal district would have 25,425. Under law, no district can be more than 10% over or under the ideal number. Pomona's current districts are out of balance as shown here (shown as difference from the ideal number:

• D1 +515 or 2.03% over
• D2 -573 or 2.25% under
• D3 -1175 or 4.62% under
• D4 +2414 or 9.49% over (near limit)
• D5 -5665 or 22.28% under (under limit)
• D6 +4482 or 17.63% over (well over limit)

Thus the commission must take population away from D6 and must add population to D5. Since these districts are at the north and south edges of the city, all districts will be impacted and have changes.

The Maps Moving Forward

At their February 23 meeting, the commission went over all 28 maps submitted by the public and fellow commissioners, as well as two others that were not submitted but were worked on by commissioners. Of these, 4 were not properly population balanced (proposed districts under or over 10% of the ideal number) which were taken out of consideration. After a lot of discussion, the commission moved forward 7 proposed maps for further consideration. These are maps 104, 107, 108, 115, 117, 119, and 129. The commission must choose a final map no later than March 23. They will have a special meeting on March 10 (5pm) to try and come up with a single map for final consideration.

The Map that Should be Eliminated

While the above is mainly fact, here is where I'll get into my opinion. Map 117 despite being population balanced, is the only map moving forward which has ALL districts in the city with over 50% voting age Hispanic population. The Fair Maps laws say that maps should not be created to give any racial group a dominance over others when possible. All the maps have 5 districts with over 50% voting age population which does reflect the city's population, But the other maps do have District 5 that is slightly under 50% Hispanic and the largest possible Asian Pacific Islander population in the 20+% range. As commission chair expressed, map 117 is problematic and would likely be challenge in court. For this reason I feel is should be immediately eliminated.

Maps That Change the North

There appear to be two philosophies about how to make district 6 smaller. My own, and the one exemplified by map 107 of those moving forward for consideration. This would carve out an area to the extreme east of the district, moving it into D4. This would preserve the 10 Freeway as a boundary, include the hospital, fairplex, and Ganesha Hills. To my mind this causes the least amount of disruption to the bulk of D6. It would require trimming some of D4 to its current southern border. What I, personally don't like about map 107 is that it moves D2 from its current mid city alignment north to the 10 Freeway between White and Towne. This would also combine the Wilton and Lincoln Park Historic Districts into one council district.

The rest of the maps attempt to carve out the western side of D6 moving Ganesha Hills and Fairplex into district 1, with map 129 moving a sliver of D6 western edge  going into D5. 

Some Conclusions and Recommendations

None of the maps will please everyone. There are many communities of interest who don't want to be split in their representation, that's the way is always happens. The goals here are the minimize the main for everyone. While I would love to see the historic districts each in a different council district as they are now, that may not be possible due to the shifting population. I do feel that the commission will have a lot of work on their hands at their March 10 meeting to try and converge the 7 maps into one that can be supported by a large part of the population. I think we're on the right track with some of the maps and way off base with some. Mostly, those maps that try to completely redefine traditional districts and make broad changes should be rejected and maps which nudge boundaries at their edges, while maintaining traditional neighborhoods should be considered.

Now it's a wait and see as to the thinking of the commission. Unfortunately, the process was slow to start and now they are faced with making a decision on a quick time schedule without the kind of careful crafting that we all would hope for.

Pomona Redistricting

It’s redistricting time again in Pomona. If you haven’t been aware, and I’m guessing by the attendance at the independent redistricting commission meetings that most of you aren’t, new district lines will be drawn for Pomona which will be in use for at least the next 10 years. Draft maps have been proposed and are available for public scrutiny. You can view all of the maps (including those that were not considered because they were not population balanced) at: https://drawpomona.org/draft-maps/.

 

The key to the new maps is to draw balanced maps. That is, where each district has nearly the same population numbers. In addition, you try to balance areas of common interest so that districts are not breaking up neighborhoods or ethnic enclaves. You can try your hand at map drawing at https://districtr.org/plan. Maps can then be saved and submitted to the commission for consideration.  Additional maps may be proposed prior to February 10 if you want to get in on the fun. 

The challenge in drawing balanced maps is that currently D6 is overpopulated and needs to be made smaller, and D5 is underpopulated and needs to be made larger. Since these two districts are at the extreme north (all north of the 10 freeway) and southwest, it will impact all the other districts as well.

Below are my personal opinions regarding the draft maps currently under consideration.

Of the maps which were under review at the January meeting, I have a preference for map #105. While maps are anonymous, I suspect that map 105 was drawn by an older white dude, probably the kind of guy who wears suspenders and hats with a feather in the band. This map is population balanced and in compliance with the fair maps act and other Federal and State requirements.

To make D6 smaller, it takes areas north of the 10 freeway to the extreme eastern corner of the city and moves them into D4. This keeps Fairplex, Ganesha Hills, Mountain Meadows, and the Hospital district in D6, while moving a wholly residential area into D4. My personal interest is to maintain the historic districts as common communities of interest and this map maintains Lincoln Park in D4, Wilton in D1, and Hacienda in D6.

Additionally it takes the historic downtown area from being split up between 4 council districts and consolidates it into D1. I feel that this gives downtown residents a unified voice on the council. I believe in the past that it was considered that businesses would benefit from having 4 councilmembers representing those interests. Open for debate.

As for D5, this map maintains the western side of the district and moves the district more into the southern part of the city.

A map which was preferred by the commission chair was map 104:

This map reduces D6 by moving D1 into the Mountain Meadows, Ganesha Park, and Fairplex areas into D1. This would maintain the hospital district and concentrate the rest of D6 to the northeast corner of the city. The rest of the districts are similar in shape to map 105. One of the problems that I see is that D1 under this plan would be 1.54% over populated (maps must be within 10% of equal so this is OK), but that doesn’t take into account that with the not counted development at the Pomona North railroad station, this will probably be out of balance within the next 10 years and cause rebalancing in 2031.

One commissioner liked map 108 because it would create all 6 districts with over 50% Hispanic voting age population. While I understand the historic issue of making districts to exclude Hispanic population, I’m not crazy about using redistricting to exclude any race. All other maps would have at least one district with ranged around 47% Hispanic. All other districts will have 50%+ Hispanic population as reflected by the majority Hispanic population of the city.

The map that, in my estimation is the most oddly drawn is map 107

This map takes D5 completely out of Phillips Ranch. It creates a D2 that includes downtown with both the Lincoln Park and Wilton historic districts.