1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Workshop 10 Wednesday, February 2, 2000 11 2:00 p.m. 12 Commissioners Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 REDISTRICTING PROPOSALS 18 19 20 21 22 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge 23 H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 24 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 25 ABSENT: JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 2 1 I N D E X 2 February 2, 2000 PAGE 3 4 REDISTRICTING WORKSHOP 5 MR. BOB BASS - Allison Bass & Associates 5 6 MR. BOB HEATH - Bickerstaff, Heath, Smiley, Pollan, Keever & McDaniel 30 7 MR. ROLANDO RIOS & MR. GEORGE KORBEL, Law 8 Offices of Rolando Rios & Joseph Monahan 55 9 Adjourned 69 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Wednesday, February 2, 2000, at 2:00 p.m., a Kerr 2 County Commissioners Court workshop was held in the 3 Commissioners Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 2 o'clock on Wednesday 7 afternoon, February 2nd, Year 2000, and we'll call to order 8 this workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. 9 Before we begin today's agenda, I want to introduce and 10 recognize County Judge Marvin Quinley from Wilson County. 11 He's come up to -- 12 JUDGE QUINLEY: We appreciate the opportunity 13 to come sit in and listen. I brought with me, Judge, 14 Ms. Fran Randall. She's our jack-of-all-trades, really. 15 Emergency coordinator and manager of all the grants and, I 16 mean, everything goes through her office. Mr. Hardberger, 17 our former County Attorney, an attorney there in town now. 18 Ray Wolf, our Auditor. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Welcome. 20 JUDGE QUINLEY: We appreciate the opportunity 21 to sit in. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glad y'all are here. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: The topic on the agenda, 24 Judge, is for the Court to hear presentations of proposals 25 for professional services for redistricting. The Court has 4 1 received proposals from three law firms: Law Offices of 2 Rolando Rios and Joseph Monahan from San Antonio, 3 Bickerstaff, Heath, Smiley, Pollan, Kever, and McDaniel law 4 firm from Austin, and the Allison, Bass and Associates law 5 firm, also from Austin, each of which, as I said, have 6 presented proposals for providing professional services to 7 this Commissioners Court in conjunction with the 8 redistricting which we will take on later this year and next 9 year. 10 It's our purpose today to have y'all make 11 whatever presentation you'd like to to the Court, to answer 12 questions, and so that we can have a better understanding of 13 what it is you propose to do for us and how you can help us 14 accomplish this most basic of -- of functions for the Court, 15 which is to provide citizens with the opportunity to vote 16 and participate in their government. Commissioners, do 17 y'all have anything you want to say before we proceed? 18 Commissioner Baldwin? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, not at all. I'm 20 excited about it. Let's get into it. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. I want to 23 listen. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Griffin? 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Loaded for listening. 5 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. I guess we'll go 2 alphabetically, unless anyone has a better idea. So, Bob, 3 are you here from Allison? 4 MR. BASS: Yes, sir. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Come forward, 6 identify yourself, and tell us what you have on your mind. 7 MR. BASS: Sure. Let me hand out just a 8 little handout. May it please the Court, my name is Bob 9 Bass. I am a partner with the firm of Allison, Bass and 10 Associates. We were honored to do your work in 1990. The 11 field of reapportionment has probably undergone more 12 substantial change, both in the law and in the technology, 13 in the last ten years than it has since 1970, when the 14 Voting Rights Act really became operative in Texas. In 15 1990, for the first time, we used computer-based 16 reapportionment. At that time, the -- we were new to the -- 17 to the technology, and frankly, the technology was somewhat 18 crude. And I think this time around. We're going to have a 19 lot better definition to the -- to the work we do. 20 Here in Kerr County, for example, one of the 21 problems we had in 1990 was the lack of suitable 22 topographical features to our mapping. And, so, while we 23 could look at a map and see roads and census block 24 boundaries, what you could not really see very well on the 25 mapping, at least, was the topography. And, so, while you 6 1 could group voters in a logical way from the technology we 2 had, what we were failing to see was the contour of the land 3 that divided people. So, here in Kerr County you've had 4 some problems since then with inconvenience to voters being 5 grouped into polling places that aren't physically -- 6 they're not able to get to very easily because of the 7 topography. I think in 2000 we'll be able to either lay 8 down a topographical database map or a U.S.G.S. survey map, 9 or even what we call orthoquad photography to address those 10 types of things in Kerr County. Where I'm from, in the 11 panhandle, it's -- you don't have much contour. So 12 that's -- that's not much of a problem. 13 Our firm has been engaged in reapportionment 14 through the individual members. Jim Allison was serving on 15 Barbara Jordan's staff, I think, at the time. Bob Heath, 16 who is here from his firm, Jim and Bob were involved in the 17 first Texas reapportionment. I've been involved in 18 reapportionment since 1978, and I was County Attorney in 19 Hale County, Plainview, and defended the County in a voting 20 rights suit, and developed some clientele, you might say, 21 county clients in the panhandle. So, our firm has been 22 engaged in this sort of work collectively for as long as 23 there has been reapportionment work. 24 I hear a lot of Commissioners Courts reading 25 the newspapers and expressing the belief that, with the -- 7 1 some of the Supreme Court decisions that have come about in 2 the last few years, that the concepts that were at play in 3 the 1990 reapportionment are no longer operative, and that 4 it would be basically possible to take a clean sheet of 5 paper and draw a totally new plan that does not pay much 6 attention to -- particularly in a county like Kerr County 7 that does not have a really high significant factor of 8 minority population, and simply draw boundaries from a clean 9 slate. I think, to some extent, you're going to have a 10 little more flexibility than you've had in the past, but I 11 think the -- the verdict is still out on just how much 12 leeway we're going to have. 13 The concept of retrogression, meaning backing 14 away from or diluting minority voting strengths, is still 15 viable. A recent Supreme Court case seems to enhance that. 16 I think that we're going to have to look at the benchmarks 17 that were set in 1990, and try to stay as faithful as we can 18 to full minority content in one precinct, at least in most 19 communities. I think that we're going to have a little bit 20 of extra flexibility, and in drawing those plans we're not 21 going to have to go to quite the extent that we did in '90 22 to enhance minority content in a lot of the precincts. But, 23 I do believe that the -- it's not going to be a simple 24 process. If anything, I think the issues are a little hazy. 25 I think the issues are not as clearly defined as one might 8 1 have hoped by this time. But, I do think that there is room 2 for making some real dynamic improvements to the way you 3 deliver public services to the public. 4 With the advent of other computer-based 5 technologies -- I don't know, do you all now use G.I.S. 6 systems in your road names and the like, 911? I think now 7 we can really build databases now, maybe from some of your 8 existing databases, that we weren't able to do in the '90 9 cycle, simply because the technology was so young. We now 10 can incorporate some of your existing data, if you would 11 like. I think we can leave you with a data file that you 12 can have other uses for. And, so, I think that the money 13 that is spent in a reapportionment process has sometimes 14 been considered as money that was a necessity, but was 15 poorly utilized, and I think that, hopefully, we can deliver 16 you a better product for the dollar that we are charging to 17 -- to do the work. 18 I'd like to talk to you a little bit about 19 the proposal that you have before you. We -- in 1990, our 20 firm did something on the order, by the time all was said 21 and done, including the school districts, the cities, J.P. 22 precincts, Commissioners precincts, 130 separate submissions 23 in the 1990 cycle. That cycle probably spans about a four- 24 to a five-year period, from the time of the release of the 25 census data. You tend to do Commissioners Courts first, and 9 1 then you do cities and schools afterwards, but it usually 2 takes as much as five years to work through and reapportion 3 all of the different governmental units that fall under the 4 Voting Rights Act. All of this Court are new faces to me. 5 So, none of the people who were here in '90 are still on the 6 Court, so I don't know how much awareness there is or what 7 your level of understanding of the Voting Rights Act might 8 be. I'd be glad to answer questions. And, you have -- in 9 this room today, you probably have the most experienced 10 people in redistricting in the state of Texas. So, if it 11 can't be answered here, there are no answers. 12 I would suggest to you, though, that what has 13 always been the dilemma for the lawyer practicing in the 14 field is to read the case law as it emerges from the various 15 courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, and then to deal 16 on the bureaucratic level with the Department of Justice. 17 There's always been something of a disconnect between the 18 judicial interpretations of the Act -- the Voting Rights 19 Act, and the bureaucrats in the Department of Justice who 20 administer the act. And, I say "bureaucrats" because that's 21 just a good collective catch-all. They're -- they're 22 trained professionals in their own right, but there has 23 been, in the past, some -- for lack of a better term, a 24 political difference of opinion between the people in the 25 Justice Department and the people on the benches. 10 1 We have seen an evolution, if you would, of 2 forces or impetus toward various goals or objectives in the 3 reapportionment process. At one time, the thrust was to 4 create as many minority seats on governing bodies as 5 possible. And, in the early part of my experience in the 6 '80's, primarily, the thrust was to try -- if there was any 7 minority population sufficient to support more than one seat 8 on a Commissioners Court or a City Council or a school 9 bored, the thrust was to do so, to make that population 10 serve two precincts. We then saw an impetus in the on-cycle 11 to maximize minority content in a single precinct, to build 12 what is virtually -- would be virtually a guaranteed seat if 13 the population was sufficient. So, in populations where 14 minority content was approaching 20 percent or better, you 15 saw real demands being placed on the practitioner and the 16 governmental units to create somewhat convoluted plans to go 17 and seek out minority populations and lump them into a 18 single precinct, and so you had some fairly radical looking 19 boundaries. 20 And, I expect it was that bizarre nature of 21 the resulting plans that led the Supreme Court, in a series 22 of cases that started with a case known as Reno vs. Shaw, to 23 literally say that bizarre appearance, while not on its face 24 evidence of an unconstitutional design or intent, that that 25 was some evidence that the Court would look beyond and to 11 1 see what was the fundamental foundation for the plan. And, 2 if it found that the plan was race-based to the exclusion of 3 other valid competing governmental interests, then the plan 4 would be unconstitutional. And, so, we have seen a sort of 5 an evolution of the law. The Voting Rights Act was 6 originally designed to redress and correct overt 7 discrimination, primarily in the deep south during the 1960 8 civil rights era, where various and sundry plans were 9 created to exclude the participation of black voters, and so 10 from that we have seen -- that beginning, we have seen the 11 emergence of various other concepts. 12 And, so, now -- now I understand in the 2000 13 census we're going to have -- in the past, where we had 14 basically four minority recognized groups, Anglos, Blacks, 15 Hispanics, and others, we're now going to have a large group 16 of various permutations of ethnicity that would be 17 recognized. Now, how do we deal with that? I still think 18 we look to, does the minority population vote cohesively as 19 a group? And can you identify ethnic communities of 20 interest that have cohesion as a political group? And if 21 you see a race and political cultural coalescence around a 22 -- a block vote, you might say, a unit vote, then you cannot 23 fragment or dilute that population center. So, I don't 24 think it really changes. It just makes the task a little 25 more complicated. 12 1 The plan that we have presented to you is 2 designed to be a fixed-cost proposal. We have built some 3 limitations into that, because the plan -- with the advent 4 of computers, it has become possible, where before it wasn't 5 literally cost-effective to make many changes. With the use 6 of the computers, it's now fairly easy to explore various 7 scenarios. What we say is we will work with you, we will 8 answer -- we will spend as many different plans as you want 9 to look at. But, once you, say okay, commit to a plan, we 10 give you full-blown production, if you would, of three full 11 plans. Now, we will work with you. And, so, you can see, 12 "Well, we can't do quite that, but we might get here." So, 13 if you want more than three plans, then we would charge you 14 beyond our fixed-fee contract. So, it's a fixed fee plus, I 15 guess. 16 But, I -- I want you to understand that we -- 17 in our experience, we're able, I think, to do very -- a 18 great bit of exploration. And you will want to sit down and 19 explore some options. You will want to see -- if certain 20 interest groups in your own constituency have come to you 21 and said, "We would like to be moved into another precinct," 22 for example, we can look at those. Kerr County, I know, 23 has -- has had considerable growth, and so your -- your 24 present boundaries, I guess the first thing you should look 25 at is take your existing boundaries with the 2000 census and 13 1 just see how far out of kilter you really are. The 2 benchmark, if you would, for that is if you have a 3 top-to-bottom deviation of 10 percent, you will be required 4 by case law to reapportion. So, you would take your 5 existing boundaries, put your population demographics into 6 those boundaries, and you would divide your population by 7 four, the number of seats. You would then see how far off 8 each precinct is from an ideal precinct size, and if then 9 you take that difference, and if it's greater than 5 percent 10 above, it probably will be greater than 5 percent below in 11 another, and that gives you a 10 percent top-to-bottom 12 deviation. 13 I apologize, my energy level's a little low; 14 I've been sick the last few days. But -- so, the first 15 thing you will want to do is make an initial determination. 16 Do we need to reapportion? I would submit to you, probably 17 due to the population growth you've had, you're going to 18 need to. It may be that you can do some fairly minor 19 tweaking, or it may be that you will want as much as you 20 can, start with a clean slate and start over. But, 21 typically, you will want to keep your traditional voting 22 places in place. We try to utilize the places that people 23 typically coalesce around as community centers, and we try 24 to utilize as best we can the voting places that they will 25 use for other elections, so there's not the confusion that 14 1 you have in some -- some places. I feel like I've sort of 2 thrown a shotgun approach to you, but if you have any 3 questions, I would be glad to try to answer those. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, one. 5 MR. BASS: Yes, sir? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back to the topography 7 question, that problem that you ran into in '90. 8 MR. BASS: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And this may be a 10 question for the Tax Assessor/Collector, I'm not sure. The 11 one that he's talking about, would that be the Upper Turtle 12 Creek, Precinct 4 issue? 13 MS. BOLIN: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think since then, 15 with permission of the federal government, we've corrected 16 that particular one. 17 MS. BOLIN: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, if we was to run 19 into that problem these days, what kind of technology do you 20 have that -- that you would be able to see those -- 21 MR. BASS: Well, the first thing we want to 22 do, as we did before, is we have public hearings and we 23 have, of course, the input from the Court. We hope to catch 24 most of those things. And, frankly, that was just one that 25 slipped by us all in the '90 process. But, we think now we 15 1 can -- at the time in '90, we just simply didn't have -- I 2 suppose there may have been some availability at some great 3 cost, but as a -- as a cost-effective measure, you could not 4 lay down into a computer database things like U.S.G.S. 5 survey maps. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 7 MR. BASS: We can law now lay those onto our 8 data, and so you can actually see terrain in the data. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 10 MR. BASS: You can actually take aerial 11 photographs and lay those down, so you can then put your 12 aerial map and then lay your road map down on top of it and 13 you can see the areas and you can more easily identify where 14 places are. The major thing that has confused Commissioners 15 is we deal with the maps all the time, but we deal with them 16 in sort of a two-dimensional framework. We don't deal with 17 them -- we don't know, for example, that's where Joe Blow 18 lives or that's where the school that's the polling place 19 is. We can finally have those located and put a dot on the 20 map, but I guess what I'm saying is the local knowledge that 21 you, as members of the Court, have or that people in your 22 county have is the principle which we have of saying, this 23 group of census blocks needs to vote here. We've made that 24 easier to recognize those areas. I don't think we've 25 eliminated the -- a potential that some pockets of 16 1 population might be grouped inappropriately. 2 I would also say that at some point you're 3 going to have to put a line down on the ground somewhere, 4 and there are going to be instances where people on one side 5 of the street vote in one precinct; people in the other go 6 some distance away to vote. You have to have a boundary 7 somewhere. It's a political question to some extent, but 8 it's also a legal question as to why you can't take that 9 census block in. Say, for example, there's a census block 10 with an apartment complex in it that has 900 people living 11 in it. The technology yet is not such that we can really 12 divide up census blocks effectively. It can be done, but 13 then you have to -- a census block is just a closed area, 14 and in the on-cycle, you could say in this block it may have 15 a very irregular shape. There are 900 people. Where they 16 are in the block, we don't know. We now can put down, like 17 I say, aerial photography and we can count the rooftops and 18 eliminate those that we know are vacant, just by drive-by 19 surveys, or that we know are commercial, and do a population 20 estimate. And, the census data will give us housing units 21 in that block, so we can do some formulistic-type 22 approaches. But, when you start trying to fragment or cut a 23 census block, you get into -- off into some sort of a 24 no-man's-land, in that you really have to be able to justify 25 how you split that population. And that becomes very 17 1 difficult, time-consuming, and expensive, so we typically 2 try not to split census blocks. So, that is one reason that 3 you'll find some groups being put in one voting box as 4 opposed to another. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. That was a 6 good answer, thank you. My only request, if we have to draw 7 new lines, I'd like for to you carve out Riverhill Country 8 Club out of Mr. Williams' and put it in mine. 9 (Laughter.) 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think that's 11 going to happen. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't know. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bob, can you briefly 14 give us a sense of the -- the process which ultimately 15 results in an approved or precleared plan? What is that 16 process? 17 MR. BASS: Let's divide that process up into 18 three stages. The first stage you will want to go into is a 19 planning stage. You will want to assemble the types of 20 documentation that you're going to need. That typically is 21 going to be, let's look at your existing political 22 boundaries, down to the election box level. Where are your 23 polling places? Then let's look at the canvass of elections 24 over the last ten years, at least, to see how many minority 25 candidates have filed for office. What has been their 18 1 outcome in those campaigns? Can we develop, through looking 2 at the information, any sense of block voting? Can we get 3 any sort of a sense of fundamental bias that's evident in 4 the boundaries that we now have? Frankly, by this time, 5 most counties have gone -- this is going to be their third 6 full cycle going in. Some counties weren't covered in '70, 7 but by '80, '90, and 2000, you've had at least two 8 redistrictings in most cases, so most of the building blocks 9 today are in pretty good shape, so you're not going to see 10 the kind of things that we did in the '70's and '80's where 11 you had fairly clear evidence of fragmentation of minority 12 pockets of population. 13 But, you gather that data. From that, you 14 then develop a set of criteria. What is it that we want our 15 political boundaries -- what principles do we want to use in 16 building new political boundaries? Political boundaries 17 should be reasonably accessible to the public, they should 18 be reasonably and easily identified so people can know, I 19 vote in this Commissioners Court precinct and in this voting 20 box precinct. So, you kind of articulate in writing what 21 criteria you're going to use in formulating your 22 redistricting plan. The next stage starts, really, with the 23 release of the census data. The census is being done in 24 March and April of this year. The forms will go out in late 25 March. They'll be hopefully collected in April. It takes 19 1 the Census Bureau, based on prior history, eight to nine 2 months to break that data down and to put it out into any 3 kind of usable form, as far as we're concerned in this 4 process. 5 So, once you get the initial data, the first 6 thing you do is you do an initial assessment based on your 7 existing boundaries. How far out of kilter are we? And, 8 there -- you know, you can now carry around the county 9 demographics in a laptop computer. Before, in '90, the -- 10 you didn't have that capability. You had to basically do it 11 on a desktop or a larger computer. Now we can actually come 12 into the county with the data, and it's a -- going to be a 13 little bit easier to manipulate than it was before. But, 14 you begin to do that assessment of your existing boundaries. 15 We recommend that counties create a citizens' committee to 16 hear testimony and to make recommendations to the Court. 17 Now, the Commissioners Court is the only body that has 18 authority to make the decisions that ultimately become your 19 plan, but we have found it helpful, and the Department of 20 Justice has found it almost a necessary step, to have 21 citizen input into the process. The Department of Justice 22 wants to make sure that these plans are drawn out in the 23 open, and that they're not part of any political 24 manipulation to favor one group or another. And, so, a 25 citizens' committee that is composed of a broad spectrum of 20 1 your community would be probably a recommended step that you 2 form that committee to make the initial review, make 3 suggestions to the Court. 4 Now, the Commissioners Courts ultimately will 5 have, again, one, two, three, possibly more alternatives, 6 then, that you would consider for final adoption. So, we 7 move into the third step. What happens in that third stage? 8 And that is the actual selection and approval of a plan. In 9 that stage, you are going to be expected to be able to 10 demonstrate that your plan meets the law, and you're going 11 to be required to show that the plan was designed to 12 accommodate the law and that it is not discriminatory. Once 13 you get through those hurdles, you then have to support that 14 plan with proper documentation, and once you have all of 15 that assembled, you send a package off to the Department of 16 Justice. It there goes through what we call a "preclearance 17 review." Now, the preclearance review is, again, by a staff 18 lawyer, usually. Sometimes nonlawyers, but it typically 19 will go in front of a lawyer at some point in its review, 20 trained in the reapportionment law, who will look at the 21 plan, look at your presentation, and make some initial 22 determination on that plan. Does it comply with the law? 23 Does it look like it accommodates the Voting Rights Act? 24 And, they have a 60-day period in which to 25 make that initial review. At the end of the 60-day period, 21 1 they basically have three options. They can approve the 2 plan, they can file an objection to the plan, or they can 3 request additional information. Now, in the crush of all of 4 the plans that come in to them between April and roughly 5 September of a census year, it appears to me that a lot of 6 plans are not given much scrutiny until the last few days of 7 the first 60-day period, because that's typically the first 8 I will hear from the Department of Justice is in the last 10 9 days of the 60 days. Then I'll get -- start getting phone 10 calls. "Okay, can you explain this fact issue or that 11 issue?" And, so, it's not uncommon to get a third option 12 from the Department of Justice, which is a request for 13 additional information. 14 We try to anticipate that and put all of the 15 information they could possibly want in the initial 16 submission, so it results in a package that's several inches 17 thick going to the Department of Justice, depending on the 18 nature of the changes. I would say the larger number of 19 counties will preclear on the first submission, but you 20 shouldn't be distressed if you're requested additional 21 information. Sometimes I think that's just a way to get 22 additional time. Because what happens with that request is 23 they get a second 60-day review period. That begins on the 24 day they receive your response to their request for 25 information. 22 1 So, again, we try to provide everything 2 they've historically wanted to see in the first submission, 3 but it's not unusual for them to ask, basically, for stuff 4 they already have, and we've even sometimes said, "Well, 5 you've already got that. It's under Tab C, sub-part D, you 6 know, Photograph 4." So, you have to point out in the 7 submission that they already have where that information is. 8 But, if they get that second 60 days, that pushes back, 9 then, the date that you can begin implementation of your 10 plan. And, implementation probably begins with the -- with 11 purging of the rolls, the voting rolls, and the issuance of 12 voters' certificates. So, that starts -- I'm not sure if -- 13 I haven't looked at a calendar, but that starts fairly early 14 in November, I would expect. So, you would want your plan 15 submitted, I would think, no later than roughly August the 16 1st. Now, I could go into lots of different -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's fine. 18 MR. BASS: -- permutations, but those are the 19 three stages of -- of the process. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else come up with 22 anything? Any other questions? Couple that I have. One 23 is, briefly tell us what you -- what you do before we get 24 the numbers. Let's assume that we set up a citizens' 25 advisory group. What are you all doing until we get the 23 1 census numbers? And the second question I have, I'll just 2 give them both, will you all be able to use the maps that 3 we've developed locally through the 911 Board? 4 MR. BASS: Let me answer the second question 5 first. I think we would need to look at the data that you 6 have, and most all of the mapping software packages can be 7 converted into -- we're using Map Info in our office. We 8 probably will also have the ability to read and use Arc Info 9 files, but those are the principal software packages. I 10 don't know what packages you use. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Arc? 12 MR. BASS: I expect we could take that data, 13 particularly if you have road data, the Department of 14 Transportation has now has done a G.P.S. study, and that -- 15 all of that data should be available by the time we get down 16 to really doing this work. One of the things that we were 17 asked to do a lot in '90 that we really did not have the 18 capability to do very cost-effectively was integrate road 19 data information into our work. I think we can do that now. 20 I'm not here for any other purpose than reapportionment, but 21 I think there are map files that can be integrated, and so 22 we would just have to look and see how much of that can be 23 effectively used. You don't want to clutter up, if you 24 would, too much of what you're doing in reapportionment with 25 other extraneous matters, but there may be some part of your 24 1 existing G.I.S. files that we can use. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we've got 3 that any -- any way that anybody could of use it or want to 4 slice it. I mean, I think it's -- I think we've got more 5 than probably most counties. 6 MR. BASS: When I first started this work in 7 '90, it was sort of rare to go into courthouses and even 8 find computers in a lot of the courthouses. Now, everybody 9 pretty well is pretty conversant over computer issues. In 10 answer to your first question, we are out early trying to 11 basically line up counties, if you would. In '90, again, we 12 found ourselves having to start basically with the release 13 of the census data and then go to the counties and get their 14 existing boundaries and -- and start from, in essence, April 15 of 2001 and have plans ready by August. And, it just proved 16 to be almost more than can be humanly done. So, we would 17 like to have the lead time through this year to get all of 18 that underlying data and work basically assembled so that 19 once we get the demographic data released from census, which 20 ought to be able to -- to be in much quicker, if you would, 21 on the progression from the release of the data till we can 22 begin talking to you about alternative proposals. We 23 really, in our last go-round, didn't really get to that 24 stage, because it took so long to just build in the original 25 data. So, we're going to be assembling all that data in 25 1 existing lines. We ought to have final -- what are called 2 "tiger files" in around September of this year, so we ought 3 to know the census block boundaries, and we can begin really 4 building a database that we'll just dump the demographic 5 data into when it's released, and we ought to be able to 6 turn that around much quicker. But, if we'll have all of 7 that work done ahead of time that we normally do while we're 8 in process, we'll have it all organized and ready to 9 formulate and hopefully get off to the Department of Justice 10 much sooner. So, I don't know if that answers your 11 question, but our -- we'll be sort of looking at the 12 County's demographics as best we can, based on what data we 13 have, but primarily we'll be assembling documents. We will 14 be building databases ready to receive that demographic 15 data. Our proposal spreads the cost over a two year -- two 16 budget years. We recognize that the cost of reapportionment 17 is high. It's -- we feel like it's going to be more 18 complicated this year because there's some ambiguity in what 19 the case law really is, so I'm not sure where the challenges 20 are going to come from. I expect you're going to see some 21 challenges coming from groups on the basis of what we might 22 call "reverse discrimination." So, I expect there'll be, if 23 anything, possibly more controversy over redistricting this 24 time than before. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a concern about the 26 1 fact that your proposal has a finite number on the number of 2 physical appearances in Kerr County. And I, quite frankly, 3 am not sure, since we're talking about essentially almost a 4 two-year contract, that that's adequate. 5 MR. BASS: We were reluctant to -- we'll work 6 with you. Our intention is to stay strictly within the 7 dollar confines, and -- and the appearances and so forth may 8 -- what we typically try to do is visit counties in groups, 9 so we'll -- once we get the counties lined up, there will be 10 a block of counties that are fairly geographically 11 contiguous to each other, and then we can circulate in that 12 group on one trip out. So, it may well be possible that we 13 can work more than that. But, I hesitate to commit 14 ourselves to an unlimited number. The time it takes to go 15 from Austin to Kerr County is not that great, but if you're 16 doing this statewide, I did not want to commit myself to an 17 unlimited travel expense. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, my concern is that if 19 you -- if your proposal contains a finite number of physical 20 appearances before Commissioners Court, and that corresponds 21 to the number of hearings, then does that mean you won't 22 come to meet with the citizens' advisory group, you won't 23 come meet with the Court other than for a hearing to explain 24 to us the maps and the process and any problems that you're 25 encountering? 27 1 MR. BASS: We anticipate -- 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Unless we pay extra? 3 MR. BASS: We anticipate that we will make 4 three appearances before the Court and three appearances 5 before a citizens' committee, at a minimum, in every county. 6 It may be that there are other appearances. We also, of 7 course, will have the ability, if people sometimes want to 8 come to Austin to sit down and look at the -- the files on 9 computer there. It's just very difficult, when you set out 10 a fixed-fee contract, to build in all of the permutations 11 that might exist. So, that is -- we have attempted to do 12 that. We're going to lose money in some counties. We're 13 going to have some profit in others, depending on the 14 complexity of each county. So, I -- we will work with you. 15 We'll accommodate you. I have no intention right now of 16 going outside the fixed-fee contract. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Given that you are 18 soliciting county business for this purpose statewide, and 19 we're all laboring under the same set of guidelines and 20 deadlines, to what extent can Kerr County be assured that 21 our business will not be on the tail end of your stream of 22 thinking and doing, as opposed to some other priority 23 position? 24 MR. BASS: Well, yes, sir, I think there is a 25 finite number of projects that can be done, and I think 28 1 probably something on the order of 50 counties is about all 2 that you can handle, one firm, I think. Now, we can staff 3 up if we see we have to. Right now, I'm not planning to add 4 any additional staffing, but if we have additional demand 5 and justified it, I could staff up. There's another reason 6 of trying to line out ahead of time well before the census 7 work actually begins. I can assure you that we did not miss 8 any deadlines last time. We pushed it up against some 9 deadlines, but we did not miss any deadlines last time. I 10 can assure you we will give it -- we'll do the best we can 11 to make sure that everybody is well served. This is a 12 difficult process. It's one that's prone to be laden with 13 quite a bit of emotion in some cases. And, so, the public 14 hearings can either be -- I've seen very poorly attended 15 meetings with little or no interest, and I've been in 16 meetings that were packed to every available seat, standing 17 room only, with very hot exchanges back and forth. So, it 18 can be a very labor-intensive project, and each county is 19 somewhat different. We will accommodate your needs. If 20 that means additional staffing, we'll do whatever it takes 21 to make sure that we don't leave anybody unattended. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else have any 23 questions? Judge, do you have anything you'd like to ask of 24 the Allison people? 25 JUDGE QUINLEY: Thank you, I appreciate that. 29 1 Fran, did you have anything? 2 MS. RANDALL: The submission dates. You 3 stated it was August the 1st of 2001, correct? 4 MR. BASS: 2001, and that's just a rough 5 guess. 6 MS. RANDALL: Guess. 7 JUDGE QUINLEY: Thank you. 8 MR. BASS: Thank you. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Bob. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Bob. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Bickerstaff firm? Bob two? 12 MR. HEATH: That's correct. Thank you, Your 13 Honor. My name is Bob Heath. I'm with Bickerstaff, Heath, 14 Smiley, Pollan, Kever, and McDaniel, which is located in 15 Austin. I'm very happy to be here today with Penny 16 Redington, one of my partners, and Penny was the County 17 Judge at Ellis County, was County Judge during the 1990 18 redistricting cycle, has lived through it -- has lived 19 through it from that perspective, and is a great asset. 20 MS. REDINGTON: And survived it. 21 MR. HEATH: Survived it, barely. And -- and 22 we didn't represent Ellis County in that, but -- 23 MS. REDINGTON: Neither did Allison Bass 24 nor -- 25 MR. HEATH: No, no. But, it was -- but she 30 1 brings an experience to the table, and is somebody we are 2 very pleased to have working with us and is somebody that I 3 think can relate to a lot of the problems that you face on a 4 daily basis because she's been there. The firm was founded 5 in 1980 by Steve Bickerstaff and I. Today we have around 40 6 lawyers. County business, city business, school district 7 business, representation of political subdivisions is a 8 major part of what we do, probably the largest part. We 9 have been doing that for the past 20 years. We have had 10 extensive experience in the redistricting process. As Bob 11 was saying, Jim Allison and I started out in 1971 doing 12 redistricting. I was down on my hands and knees on the 13 floor of offices in the state capitol working with a grease 14 pencil and an adding machine. We didn't have calculators; 15 we had adding machines and big charts and tables, trying to 16 draw districts for the State Senate. 17 And, one thing -- I am going to depart from 18 what Bob said. He talked about the great leaps between the 19 '80's and the '90's -- or, rather, the '90's and 2000. And 20 there are important changes in the law, very dramatic 21 changes in the law that have occurred, but I'm going to 22 disagree with him about how significant the technological 23 change was, because I can assure you, from the time that I 24 spent down on that floor with the grease pencil and -- and 25 such in 1972, from there until we got to computers, that was 31 1 the big jump. That made a big, big difference. 2 And, we do have that capability, this sort of 3 capability he was talking about, the topographical, the 4 aerial photos, and we certainly do all that. We have a 5 wonderful person who heads up our G.I.S. work; her name is 6 Sherry McCall. She used to work at the Texas Education 7 Agency. She's prepared some material there, just some maps 8 and demographic tables of Kerr County showing your 9 Commissioner precincts and what the demographics are. There 10 is also some information there about the projected changes 11 from the State Data Center for Kerr County. And that 12 suggests that you're probably going to grow by a third, from 13 36,000 to 48,000, between 1990 and 2000. I don't know if 14 that's true or not, but we'll find out when the census comes 15 out in about a year. But -- but there will be some 16 significant changes. There's also -- I don't want to get 17 into the details, but a paper that I prepared and will be 18 using in some other context, it's there at the end. That 19 talks about some of the legal changes that have occurred 20 between 1990 and 2000 and some of the challenges that will 21 be facing counties in that time. 22 In redistricting, we have had the opportunity 23 to represent many, many entities. We have done hundreds of 24 submissions. We represent entities in redistricting matters 25 from -- the City of Houston is probably the largest, to 32 1 Dallas Independent School District, Houston Independent 2 School District, and then to special districts and counties 3 of much smaller size. Sutton County, Garza County up near 4 Lubbock, they're much smaller than these very large ones, 5 but it's given us a vast range of experience. One of the 6 important pieces of experience I think I've had in this 7 particular area is that I represent City of Kerrville in the 8 redistricting litigation that they are facing. They were 9 sued seeking single member districts. We have defended that 10 at the request of the City Council, worked with the City 11 Council. Please feel free to talk to members of the council 12 that -- the case has already been on hold for a while, and 13 not all the members of the council were there, but the City 14 Attorney is the person I've worked with throughout, and 15 contact anyone over there or Kevin Laughlin, City Attorney, 16 about that representation. I would be pleased for you to do 17 that. 18 Another important thing and important area of 19 experience has to do with the Shaw vs. Reno litigation that 20 Bob talked about is something that happened since the last 21 redistricting, and I think that's going to be the most 22 dramatic change. In 1991, when your predecessors were 23 sitting here and deciding what to do, they had assert legal 24 context they were operating in. And, basically, that 25 context was the Voting Rights Act, Section 2, under which 33 1 people can sue you if you dilute minority voting strength, 2 and Section 5, which is the section that requires you to 3 submit your plans to the Department of Justice for their 4 approval before you can implement it. So, all your 5 pressure, all your legal pressure is coming from the Voting 6 Rights Acts and needing to conform to the principles of the 7 Voting Rights Act. Well, in 1991, it's really pretty easy 8 to advise people how to avoid litigation, how to get their 9 plans precleared, because you need to conform to the Voting 10 Rights Act. That's it. It may not be politically easy to 11 do it, it may not always be practical to do it, but legally, 12 I can tell you what will get you through without a legal 13 problem. And then, working with practicalities, that's 14 something different, and not always as easy. 15 But, in 2000, you still have that problem, 16 you still have that issue. You have the Voting Rights Act 17 and you have to conform to it. But, in 1993, the Supreme 18 Court represented a new cause of action, brought not 19 necessarily by minorities saying that they've been 20 discriminated against under the Act, but can be brought by 21 Anglos or members of minority groups, saying that you have 22 made race-based decisions. And, this is the Shaw vs. Reno 23 doctrine. What that does is puts the County or the school 24 district or other governmental entity between the proverbial 25 rock and the hard spot. Legal pressure from this side 34 1 saying comply with Voting Rights Act, make the decisions 2 that are consciously based on race in order to comply with 3 the Voting Rights Act. Legal pressure from this side 4 saying, don't make race-based decisions, be color-blind in 5 your decision making. And if you're color-blind in your 6 decision making, you can't be looking at the Voting Rights 7 Act, because you've got to consider race. 8 So, it's the sort of thing you guys face all 9 the time. It's not easy. It's very difficult, and it's a 10 difficult legal situation. And, what you've got to do in 11 2000 that you didn't have to do in 1990, is to walk a 12 tightrope. If you get a little too far over here, you fall 13 off. A little too far the other way, you get in trouble on 14 the other side, because the legal pressures that were all 15 one way in 1990, they come from both directions in 2000, and 16 the reason is the Shaw vs. Reno litigation. 17 I think that our firm is uniquely qualified 18 to represent people on this because of our representation of 19 the City of Houston, the fourth largest city in the United 20 States. And, in the City of Houston, any sort of issue or 21 problem that you can imagine can come up there and does, and 22 every sort of situation exists there. But they redistrict 23 every two years. They look and decide if they're going to 24 redistrict every second year, because they annex, and their 25 charter says you have to look and see if you're going to 35 1 redistrict every two years. And they had to undergo a major 2 redistricting in 1997, and they had people saying, "If you 3 change these particular districts and the minority 4 concentrations in it, we're going to sue you." And, they're 5 the people who had sued them before, and the City had every 6 reason to believe that was going to happen. And, they had 7 people saying, "If you are not color-blind in your decision 8 making and if you retain those districts and don't cut up 9 the city in a different way, we're going to sue you." And 10 they're the same people who had sued the State over the 11 state congressional districts. They had sued the State over 12 the State Representative and State Senate districts; the 13 same plaintiffs, the same lawyers. So, again, they were 14 really between the rock and the hard place. 15 We walked them through, developed the 16 process, with the idea that as the first really large entity 17 doing a redistricting from scratch -- not where the Court 18 had sent something back and said, "Do it again." For the 19 first time that I'm aware of, doing a from-scratch 20 redistricting under the Shaw vs. Reno doctrine, knowing that 21 at the end, somebody out there is waiting to file a lawsuit 22 against you. We did that. We developed a record 23 throughout. We developed the process, which was designed to 24 preserve the City's legal position. As they threatened, 25 they did sue us the day that we adopted the plan. We went 36 1 to court, we got a summary judgment in favor of the City, so 2 that it was a very successful process. Worked very well, 3 was precleared by the Department of Justice, did comply with 4 the Voting Rights Act, and got a summary judgment in the 5 challenge that was brought. I don't think you're going to 6 be in the same sort of position where somebody's waiting at 7 the courthouse if do you "X" or if you don't do "X," but you 8 want to be sure that your process meets the guidelines. And 9 that's what we do in designing a process and in 10 implementing -- or helping you implement the decision -- the 11 decision-making process. 12 One of the questions earlier was what sort of 13 things do you do? And, generally, there's some difference 14 between Bob Bass and I as to what we would answer on that, 15 but the main thing that you're going to be doing is you're 16 going to be working through this process, with the idea that 17 the decisions you make in the process, the documents you 18 develop in the process, the transcripts of the public 19 hearings, the maps and so forth that you develop in the 20 process, ultimately, when you file your submission to the 21 Department of Justice, you ought to be able to just pull all 22 that together, because you have developed it six months 23 earlier, maybe three months earlier, with the idea that 24 that's one of the things you're going to have to do to 25 comply with the Department of Justice requirements, so you 37 1 just fit it in. Everything you do is looking toward the 2 Department of Justice preclearance. Also, everything you do 3 should be looking toward making sure you have a record that 4 shows you comply with the constitutional requirements of 5 Shaw vs. Reno, so that if somebody does have a problem with 6 that, you can say, "Look, we complied; we did what the law 7 required." And if they want to sue you, you can put it 8 together, go down, get a summary judgment and have it there 9 as your record for the Court. 10 In the proposal we made, we proposed an 11 hourly fee. We do that because we think that that's fair. 12 And I think, quite personally, the County's likely to come 13 out better on an hourly fee than it is on a fixed fee. If 14 you want a fixed fee, I'll be happy to sit down and develop 15 a fixed fee with you and come up with a fixed fee. It will 16 end up having some guidelines -- or some parameters in it, 17 so the same sort of thing that Bob's talking about; if it's 18 more than three plans or more than four plans or whatever we 19 decide on, then it's extra. If it's more than three visits 20 or more than four visits, then it's extra, so that if it 21 gets beyond -- very far beyond what the normal process would 22 be, we have a protection. The reason is, where you have 23 unusual situations that develop, there may be some that 24 change the nature of the process. If you want a fixed fee, 25 I will give you a fixed fee; we'll work one out with you. I 38 1 don't have a problem with that, using the same sort of -- of 2 agreed-upon number of plans and agreed-upon number of 3 visits. 4 Hourly, I think, is something that works. 5 That way you pay just for what you use, nothing else. When 6 we look to determine if you need to redistrict, we will do 7 that. We will make a report to you. We will bill that on 8 an hourly basis. And, if the report says you don't need to 9 redistrict, you're just fine as you are, you don't have to 10 go further, then we'd bill for the hours we put in, and that 11 will be somewhere, probably, between $1,000 and $2,000, and 12 that will be the end of it. We won't bill you till we do 13 the work. You don't have to pay up front; you pay as you go 14 along. If you want us here for 10 visits or 20 visits, 15 we'll be there. We can work with you, we think, to have it 16 so maybe it's three or four or something less, because it's 17 going to be cheaper, but we can work with you to do that. 18 We can get you plans on a very timely basis. We will have 19 additional people working with us. In 1990, we had several 20 people working different computers, different licenses on 21 the computers, doing that in multiple shifts. I would 22 oversee all of it, look at all the plans, be familiar with 23 the plans, but we were able to do multiple plans so that we 24 could do on it a timely basis, and we have the size that we 25 have the ability to do that. 39 1 The plans -- and I think it's important that 2 any plan be one that's tailored to you. You know, I can get 3 up here and I can give you three plans, I can give you four 4 plans. That's easy and doesn't take any -- you know, I 5 could do that today, but it's not any good for you, because 6 before the first plan we have to sit down, talk about and 7 understand what your needs are. It may be that one 8 Commissioner has a reason a particular part of his precinct 9 shouldn't be there -- you know, should go over to another 10 one, or he wants a particular area to be in his precinct, 11 that country club or whatever. And, I'll tell you, we have 12 had every imaginable reason to put something somewhere. You 13 know, somebody's father lives in a particular precinct, so 14 that has to go into the City Council district or the 15 Commissioners precinct. Or somebody's worked on a project 16 where a you new bank came in and they want that, or there's 17 some great civic center attraction there, and a particular 18 person has to have that. 19 Those are the sort of things that -- that 20 come up that need to be done -- you know, and that's what we 21 find working with you. The plans that we develop are ones 22 that are done with your input, and see where we get. We can 23 bring a laptop down here, set it up with a big projector, 24 everybody can see, and work with you and with your staff. 25 If you decide to have a citizens' advisory committee, we can 40 1 talk to you about the merits and demerits of that, and we 2 can certainly work with them. I don't think it's as 3 necessary or as critical. We've done many without that, and 4 we've had no problem with Department of Justice, so long as 5 we have had a public input process and it's been an open 6 process. 7 Citizens' advisory councils and committees 8 can be very good. They can be problems if you have 9 situations -- and we've been involved in some where the 10 citizens' advisory committee thinks that ultimately they are 11 deciding the plan. Well, of course, they're not elected; 12 they don't have the constitutional responsibility to do 13 that, or the constitutional authority to do that. So -- and 14 so there may be sources of tension there. But, we can work 15 with you whichever which way you decide. We have had the 16 opportunity to work here in this area in the redistricting 17 process with the City of Kerrville. I would be happy to 18 answer any questions. I hope we have the opportunity to 19 work with you. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Let's start with 21 Commissioner Griffin this time. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. This is a 23 generic question for -- it really would apply to anybody 24 doing this. 25 MR. HEATH: Sure. 41 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But I know we have 2 some Commissioners' precinct lines right now that are 3 defined by gullies and dry washes. Is it fairly simple to 4 do away with that and do it only on -- and earlier we hit on 5 the same thing, that -- that can we just say as a 6 specification we want it to be a recognizable roadway, no 7 matter how minor or something, and then fit the data into 8 that? 9 MR. HEATH: Sure, absolutely. You can decide 10 what you want to do. Typically, your lines -- most lines 11 are defined by census geography. The lines we have in 12 there, by the way, came from the legislative council, and 13 I'm not sure if one of them perhaps followed the gully, and 14 that was or wasn't the boundary of the census tracts. 15 Before we got into anything, we could check all that and 16 make sure all those were correct, but you can say yeah, we 17 want to have certain roads as defining boundaries or types 18 of roads, and then do that. If it crosses a census block or 19 splits a census block -- first, it's not that likely that 20 roads will, because typically roads are your census block 21 boundaries, but if it does, it does become a little more 22 complex to split that population out, but you can do it. 23 And, depending on the amount of people in that block, it can 24 be not that much of a problem. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay, thank you. 42 1 MR. HEATH: It's -- you know, probably the 2 kind of blocks you're talking about where you have gullies 3 and all are out in the hill country, not in town. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right. 5 MR. HEATH: They're not populated to any 6 great extent, and to the extent they are, I imagine the 7 Commissioner can sit down and say, there's this house, this 8 house, and this house, and here's how many people live 9 there, and there's nothing on the other side, or there's one 10 house. We can figure that out. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I just think being 12 able to recognize the boundaries from the definition is very 13 important, and we have some that are not at the present 14 time. 15 MR. HEATH: Right. And -- and that's 16 something -- one of the things you will want to do at the 17 beginning of the process, and part of the reason is for 18 compliance with Shaw vs. Reno, is to sit down and adopt 19 criteria. And, one of the criteria that you may want to 20 adopt is what sort of things we want the boundaries -- we 21 want recognizable boundaries, no gullyss, no fence lines, et 22 cetera. We're going to try to avoid that. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One other quick 24 question. Is Shaw the North Carolina case, or -- 25 MR. HEATH: Yes, that's correct. Shaw vs. 43 1 Reno is the original North Carolina case decided in 1993. 2 There are two other North Carolina congressional 3 redistricting cases that have come up since then, but -- and 4 all that -- 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Along the freeway? 6 MR. HEATH: -- evolves from Shaw vs. Reno. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I see. 8 MR. HEATH: I happened to have the 9 opportunity to hear Shaw argue to the Supreme Court; I was 10 there that day, so it was an interesting -- interesting 11 case. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the one that 13 takes the interstate -- 14 MR. HEATH: That's correct. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Most of the length of 16 the state? 17 MR. HEATH: Yeah, it's either 130 or 18 160-some-odd miles, and sometimes the width of the -- 19 interstate highway -- and I assure you, in his argument, the 20 lawyer for the plaintiffs had a big old map and he referred 21 to that often. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It was as wide as the 23 right-of-way in places. 24 MR. HEATH: That's correct. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 44 1 MR. HEATH: And that's the sort of thing that 2 happened because of the technological ability that we have 3 with the computer. When we had the grease pencil, you 4 couldn't do that -- or you could, but it was real -- it 5 would be really, really tough. It was no problem with the 6 computer. And, because of that, you have that kind of 7 district, or the kind of district that came in in Houston 8 and Dallas and congressional lines -- Bushby Barrows (sic) 9 did the Supreme Court case on that, and those are the sort 10 of things that are truly bizarre and unusual that the courts 11 are not going to find acceptable. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, having now heard 14 from two of the lay firms, and assuming that the third law 15 firm presentation will be just as compelling as the first 16 two, there's no question in my mind that we would be 17 probably be very well served. But, nether firm -- I guess 18 that reduces my -- my thought process down to how we get the 19 best services for Kerr County at the least possible dollars. 20 The Allison firm talks about an initial payment, which I 21 guess I could define as a floor, and then reapportionment, 22 as required, is another payment, which then puts us to the 23 ceiling. I'm having difficulty trying to sort out in my 24 mind how your fees for services based on the rates are going 25 to -- going to give us some balance in there. How do I know 45 1 what we're going to be doing? 2 MR. HEATH: Sure. Most of the entities that 3 we represented in 1990 that were of this general size, you 4 know -- and that's sort of hard to compare, because you've 5 got a range of counties and cities and stuff. But this 6 general size, you're probably looking at fees -- in 1990, it 7 was a little simpler; $10,000, something like that, maybe 8 $12,000, whatever. I think it's going to be more than that. 9 I think if we were in the -- now, I do not anticipate that 10 it would be more than $20,000 on an hourly basis. Most of 11 the hours are going to be done by the redistricting 12 paralegals or specialists, the computer people, who are 13 billing at a lower -- they're going to be supervised by the 14 lawyers, but it's not going to be the lawyer rates for most 15 of those hours. That will help. 16 I'll be happy to sit down and work out -- you 17 know, I mentioned, you know, I don't think it would be more 18 than $20,000. I'll work out a fixed-fee arrangement on that 19 with, you know, limitation on number of plans -- and by 20 "plans," I'm talking about plans you have input in. I'm not 21 going to say, "Here are three plans; that's your limit," but 22 that you work with. And the limitation on number of visits 23 because, obviously, if I've got to come here or we to have a 24 lawyer or somebody come here ten times, that's different 25 economically than if we're here three times. If we're 46 1 making -- I've been in a county where it was a very unusual 2 situation, because what became very obvious was that one 3 Commissioner was going to be -- was probably going to lose. 4 No matter -- you know, the question was which one. 5 We don't want to decide that. We're not 6 going to decide that. That's the Commissioners Court's 7 decision. They ultimately recognized that, but it took them 8 a long, long time to figure out how they were going to do 9 it. And, you know, I don't know that we did 100 plans, but 10 every conceivable situation we showed them, because they 11 were interested; they wanted to look at it. That sort of 12 thing costs more. I don't think that's going to happen 13 here. It shouldn't. But, you know, those are the sort of 14 things that could. So, I'll do a fixed-fee, but I think, 15 you know, the -- around $20,000 might be a probable upper 16 limit, absent something just really unusual, and it probably 17 will be less than that. I think if you don't need to 18 redistrict -- and I think it's unlikely that that 19 solution -- or that is going to be the answer, but if you 20 don't need to redistrict, that's going to cost you about a 21 thousand bucks to find out, maybe two. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one comment. 23 We're already at Plan 2, Commissioner, if you got your eyes 24 on Riverhill. 25 (Laughter.) 47 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Buster, anything for the 2 Bickerstaff people? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just the fee issue. 4 It seems like, to me, that -- and I appreciate you offering 5 to put together a fixed fee. I think we should ask -- this 6 Court should ask all three to come in with the same -- 7 either fixed-fee or a break-out, so we can kind of compare a 8 little bit closer, apples and apples. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll give them all an 10 opportunity to sharpen their pencil before we put the vote 11 to it. A couple questions I have. If we were to engage you 12 on an hourly rate, would you give us a budget? Which I know 13 would be an estimate, but it would at least allow us to 14 prepare for cash flow and to make some decisions regarding 15 scheduling of visits. 16 MR. HEATH: I will be happy to. And -- and 17 also, as you say, with a -- a timing budget on that. Both 18 -- both for cost and timing. We wouldn't bill anything 19 until we did any work. As a practical matter, the data's 20 not going to be out until -- well, it will be out by 21 April 17, 2001. My guess is it might be six weeks or so 22 earlier than that, but until the data gets out, the work's 23 not going to be done, so there's not going to be anything 24 until after that, that the first liability is incurred. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: The second question I have, 48 1 does it make any sense for us to redistrict before the State 2 Legislature, the Senators and Representative districts are 3 done? 4 MR. HEATH: That's an excellent question. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good 6 question. 7 MR. HEATH: And, basically, in our 8 experience, sometimes we may start the process while it's 9 still going on, but you -- you really don't want to adopt 10 anything until the Legislature has taken at least the first 11 cut, because if they -- let's see. In this county, you will 12 not be so big that they have to split it for a State 13 Republican district. There's always the possibility it 14 could be split for State Senate, congressional, whatever. 15 And, if that occurs, that's going to affect -- or may affect 16 where you want to put your lines, because otherwise, you may 17 end up with a voting precinct that is one block wide. You 18 know, I would probably wait to see exactly what the 19 Legislature does, as I said, on the first cut. 20 You may not want to wait around forever, 21 because otherwise you will get too late. Because there is a 22 real possibility on the legislative redistricting that if 23 the Legislature and the governor cannot agree, that there 24 would be a veto, it would go to the Legislative 25 Redistricting Board. That would take two or three more 49 1 months, and then you're in tough shape to get something done 2 and approved in time for the 2002 filing deadlines in 3 primaries. So, at some point, you may have to sort of take 4 a chance. And, certainly with congressional and 5 legislative, to the extent that they're challenged in Court, 6 that can go on for years, and we can't -- you know, you 7 can't wait for that. So, for at least the first cut, I'd 8 wait and see what they do, but after that, there may get to 9 be a point where you have to take a chance in this county. 10 That's probably not as big a chance as it is in a much 11 larger county, where you know for sure it's going to be 12 split. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a quick 14 question. In terms of -- of getting this work all done, 15 aside from a potential of impacting the 2002 elections -- 16 March elections by not having everything completed, are 17 there any other penalties that are imposed on a county if it 18 fails to meet whatever its deadlines are? 19 THE WITNESS: Well, the main potential 20 penalty would be -- if you don't make it for the 2002 21 elections, is that somebody will look and say -- say you 22 have 48,000 persons -- saying there ought to be 12,000 per 23 Commissioner's precinct, but this one has 9,000 and this one 24 has 15,000; doesn't comply with one person, one vote, and 25 I'm going to find a plaintiff and sue under a one person, 50 1 one vote theory. And, if they do that, they've got to lay 2 down suits, you're going to lose, and you're going to have 3 to pay your attorney's fees, you're going to have to pay the 4 other side's attorney fees. That's the biggest immediate 5 danger. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Judge, do you have anything 8 you want to ask of the Bickerstaff people? 9 JUDGE QUINLEY: No, I don't believe. Anyone 10 else? The reason I brought all these other people with me 11 is so somebody could keep up with it. 12 MS. RANDALL: Software. What software do you 13 use? 14 MR. HEATH: We use -- Auto Bounds is the name 15 of it. And I'm not the technical person, so -- but it is 16 Arc View, Arc Info. I think it's Arc View, but it's based 17 on Arc Info, or -- and it's certainly compatible with that, 18 which I understand is sort of the industry -- or is a 19 standard. And, our person is outstanding on that. She's -- 20 they refer calls to her from all over the country. She 21 talked -- the other day she got a call from the election 22 administrator of the City of New York to talk about, you 23 know, how the software works. 24 MS. RANDALL: Thank you. 25 MR. HARDBERER: And the census tract, if at's 51 1 fairly heavily -- if it's fairly lightly populated, I 2 understood to you say there wasn't a real big problem to 3 split it apart? If you've got one that's pretty heavily 4 populated, this would be -- in our county, in particular, 5 the census tract was very lightly populated in 1990; that's 6 now fairly heavily populated. 7 MR. HEATH: And you want to split -- 8 MR. HARDBERER: Yeah. And if we -- this is 9 because the census tract lines in 1990 ran through what are 10 now unified subdivisions. 11 MR. HEATH: Right. Well, first, as I 12 understand -- and on some of this, I rely on my technical 13 person who's worked with the census and all. The tract 14 lines will be identical from '90 to 2000. 15 MR. HARDBERER: Yes. 16 MR. HEATH: The lower level lines will not 17 be, or will not necessarily be. If you have -- you're 18 not -- you're probably not going to redistrict at the tract 19 level. You will be at a lower level in the redistricting. 20 And, so, if you want to split a tract, you want to split a 21 block group, which will be an intermediate level, it's no 22 problem. Where the problem is is splitting blocks, which 23 are your smallest -- and it's basically a city block, except 24 if you're outside of town, you don't have blocks and they're 25 huge. So, you probably have blocks that will be created for 52 1 2000 in a newly developed area, because there will be 2 streets in there and there will be boundaries, and it will 3 necessarily split into small blocks. But, you know, we can 4 do it. We do it all the time. Where you really have to do 5 it is in school districts, 'cause school district lines 6 don't necessarily follow census lines, or vice-versa. So, 7 when the school district boundary goes right down the middle 8 of the block, you know, and you're representing the school 9 districts, that's where you have to split, and we do that 10 all the time. 11 MR. WOLF: Okay. 12 MR. HEATH: Yeah. The -- the bigger the unit 13 that you're working with -- and the bigger the population, 14 it gets a little harder, but if there are five people in the 15 block and you have an idea where they are, it really doesn't 16 matter that much. You know, if you're -- if it's 3/2 17 instead of 2/3, it -- compared to 48,000 persons, it doesn't 18 matter. You want to get it right, but -- you know, there 19 are certain practical parameters -- you know, you don't need 20 to spend $1,000 to find where that one person is. 21 JUDGE QUINLEY: Judge, have I one question. 22 The negotiations, is this just on precinct lines only, or is 23 this other areas, such as school districts and things like 24 that? 25 MR. HEATH: Well, no. What I was talking 53 1 about, and I think -- I haven't seen Bob's proposal, but if 2 I can speak for him, what we're talking about are 3 Commissioner precincts lines. Working with J.P. and 4 constable precincts, working with your election precincts. 5 But school districts, cities, that's a different -- 6 different matter. 7 MR. HARDBERER: Would there be any 8 cost-saving if we wanted to go in with the school district? 9 MR. HEATH: Could be. Could -- could be. 10 But, you know, particularly -- you know, we could probably 11 work something out if you had, you know, the school district 12 and the City and the County, and they're all working on it 13 and you go and cover them all in a single -- single trip, 14 maybe, or each time you go, and -- you know, there might be 15 some opportunity for savings there. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? Thank you, 17 appreciate it. Come on. 18 MR. RIOS: Judge, Commissioners, thank you 19 for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is 20 Rolando Rios, and along with me is Mr. George Korbell. 21 We're both attorneys. The issue of redistricting is a very 22 important issue, something that I've been involved in for 20 23 years, and it's very near and dear to my heart, because it 24 is democracy at the local level, an extremely important 25 process insofar as -- as citizen participation is concerned. 54 1 I was talking to a judge recently, and he said, yeah, 2 Mr. Rios, this is one of these things that we do once every 3 ten years, so it's pretty hard to get good at it. And I 4 said, yeah, but -- and then on top of it, they're always 5 changing the rules. And, I assure you, sure as I'm standing 6 here, I'm sure you've gathered that from the other 7 presenters, that in the next two or three years, we'll 8 probably end up with maybe two, maybe three new Supreme 9 Court Justices, and I assure you, the rules are going to 10 change again. 11 On top of this, add the fact that this -- 12 this year, unlike any other year in the past censuses, the 13 census will issue two sets of data; the actual counts, where 14 they go and actually count people, and the second set of 15 data is going to be estimates, which is going to compensate 16 for the undercount, because you know in the past, every -- 17 every census, there has been documented undercounts of 18 minorities. So, now, this year what they've done is they've 19 not only done the counts; they're also going to have 20 projections to -- to compensate for the undercounts. So now 21 you're saying, oh, which set do we use? We'll be using -- 22 in this state, we'll be using the projections, because 23 that's what the -- the law requires, unless there's some 24 kind of state statute that says otherwise. That's also an 25 issue that may evolve. 55 1 I am an attorney that's been in private 2 practice for 20 years in the area of voting rights. 3 Mr. Korbell has been through the reapportionment process in 4 1970, 1980 and 1990. I've been through the reapportionment 5 process in '80 and '90. I went to law school up in the east 6 at Georgetown, and while I was there I did work at the 7 Justice Department doing this very thing, preclearance. So, 8 I'm -- our experience brings in the fact that we have 9 experience at the Justice Department and we kind of have a 10 pretty good idea of how that place works. And, together, 11 I'm sure George and have I been involved in at least 300 12 reapportionments over the past 20, 30 years. 13 What I'd like to do is just go through the 14 data -- the information I have for you in the little packets 15 that I gave you. Some common questions that have been 16 raised to us by other counties that are using our services. 17 One is the issue of public hearings. That is -- is pretty 18 much a local matter. If y'all want to have public hearings, 19 you should. I would say probably nine out of ten counties 20 do not. It's a -- it's an issue that can be good for 21 citizen participation. Whether you have hearings or not, 22 you're going to have to have a public hearing when you adopt 23 your plan, so there will be citizen participation. 24 How important is that at the Justice 25 Department? Well, I can tell you that if you have a plan 56 1 that -- that, let's say, can be perceived as splitting up 2 the minority community or discriminating in any way, I don't 3 care how many hearings you've had; if it does that, it's not 4 going to get approved. And, if you have no hearings, but 5 you've got a plan that's fair and fair to the community, it 6 doesn't matter; it's going to get approved. All they're 7 looking for is -- is whether there's any civil rights -- 8 voting rights violations. So, the issue of hearings, again, 9 is a local decision. Our proposal, which is for $10,000, 10 doesn't have any hearings in it, but as I mentioned in my 11 information here, if you want to have hearings, we'll come 12 down here and conduct them for you, do the -- do the record, 13 do the hearings, conduct them for if you wish. We'll charge 14 $1,000 per hearing if you want to have them. We're only 45 15 minutes away. 16 One of the questions that was asked by one of 17 the Commissioners was how many plans we present. We will do 18 as many plans as you feel you need. We just finished doing 19 the -- the Uvalde County, which is approximately the size of 20 your county. We just reapportioned their Justice of the 21 Peace precincts, and we presented them seven alternatives. 22 They -- they chose one, and we recently submitted it to the 23 Justice Department for -- for their preclearance. So, the 24 number of plans is not a problem. I think after you see 25 three or four of them, it's -- you're going to say, hey, all 57 1 we need is two alternatives. We don't need any more plans. 2 We can give you ten if you like. Wouldn't affect the cost 3 any. 4 What happens if there's no reapportionment 5 required? Our contract calls for three -- we have three 6 payments; an initial $2,000 payment, which is a retainer. 7 On that, we do a pre-census analysis, some of which George 8 will talk about in a minute. If it looks like you don't 9 have to do a reapportionment, then that's it. The $2,000 is 10 it. But, I will tell you that you will have to reapportion, 11 because this growth here has been phenomenal, and I doubt 12 that every County Commissioner's precinct has grown exactly 13 the same way. Plus there's probably been some movement 14 within the communities, as well. 15 Census information. One county was asking us 16 if -- if they -- we'd charge them extra to provide them with 17 the data. We have all the data that the State's going to 18 have. We have the GIS maps. We're using Maptitude as the 19 software. We've got all the computers. And -- and any 20 census data that we have, mapping and whatever for your 21 county, if you'd like to have it, we'd be more than happy to 22 keep you happy and provide you whatever information you 23 want. Our services are basically broken down in to three 24 phases. When we get hired, we do a pre-census analysis, and 25 with some estimates we can already give you an estimate as 58 1 to which Commissioners precinct looks like it's 2 overpopulated. That will be done right away, within the 3 next -- within the next 30 or 60 days from whenever we get 4 hired. 5 Second thing is we present your plans. What 6 we do -- what we're doing in some of these counties, we've 7 been hired right -- for example, one -- some of the counties 8 want us to help them equalize roads, so we can start doing 9 that now, because that data is available. Another county 10 wanted us to give them a better scheme on how to label their 11 voting precincts. Well, we're doing that now, as well. 12 Once we get the -- the census data, we can pretty well 13 produce for you a plan within 30 to 60 days. You start 14 thinking about what you want to do, where you want to go, 15 which direction. You tell us which plan you want. 16 Then, the third phase is we prepare the 17 submission for the Department of Justice and get it in to 18 them and get it approved. Our rates are laid out in here 19 by -- by the size of the county. Like I said, Uvalde is 20 down the street here. We're doing their redistricting -- 21 and that's an interesting case, too. In 1990, they -- 22 Uvalde County had hired a -- I guess it was a demographer 23 out of Austin, not a lawyer, and they did their 24 redistricting, and they had some big legal problems and they 25 hired Mr. Korbell. He went over there and fixed it up for 59 1 them at a very reasonable cost. The contract is there. 2 It's pretty straightforward. Like I said, $10,000; $2,000 3 retainer, then $4,000 we'll present your plans, and then the 4 last $4,000 is when we get approval by the Department of 5 Justice. 6 The last sheet that I have there for you is 7 basically issues that have been raised in redistricting. 8 Those are -- those are basically factors that need to be 9 considered when you're doing redistricting. What we can 10 tell you is whatever plan you adopt, with our guidance, will 11 be a legally defensible plan. If it has to go to court, it 12 can be defended. We have a fixed rate, like I said, for 13 $10,000, what George and I are charging for this type of 14 work. If you needed to have us do more work on it or you 15 want an hourly rate for work beyond what we've generally 16 spoken about, we charge $125 an hour. And, I assure you, at 17 $125 an hour, we still make a pretty good profit. We don't 18 have a lot of overhead. We're a small firm, and this is 19 pretty much what we've specialized in for the past 20 years. 20 And, now Mr. Korbell wants to say a few things -- few more 21 things that we have here for you. 22 MR. KORBELL: What you have there are some 23 charts and graphs on your projected growth rate compared to 24 the state of Texas, is the first one. Your projected 25 numerical growth rate. Again, everybody agrees it's going 60 1 to be about a third. And, then I've got a chart -- the 2 third page is a chart showing your voter registration 3 information for '92, '94, '96, and as of yesterday. And, I 4 wouldn't rely on the '92; that comes from the State and I 5 think there is some inaccuracies in that, but the '94, '96, 6 and 2000, I think, are fairly accurate. And, if you look 7 down at the following two pages, there are charts showing 8 your registration by -- vote by Commissioner precincts. 9 And, there are two charts; one, the active registration, and 10 the other, the total registration. And the total 11 registration is the suspense registrants, together with the 12 active registrants. In other words, the people that would 13 normally have been stricken from the rolls, but are still on 14 there because of the federal Motor-Voter Statute. But, as 15 you can see from the voter registration, there is a 16 significant difference in the registration. Now, we 17 sometimes see differences in the registration, but where we 18 see this great a difference, I can almost guarantee that 19 you'll need to apportion. 20 Now, the first question you're going to ask 21 just, like all the Commissioners ask when we talk in these 22 situations, is how can do you it so cheaply? Why are you so 23 much lower than everybody else? The reason that we're so 24 much lower than everybody else is we're going to get going 25 on it early. And, the precensus analysis that Rolando was 61 1 talking about is exactly that. We're going to project your 2 population. We think we can come within about five percent 3 of your population. And, if you've got a fully matured 911 4 G.I.S. system, I think we probably can -- can save the 5 census the cost of -- of counting out here. We can come up 6 with numbers very quickly for you. We hope to get that to 7 all of our clients within the first quarter so you can look 8 at the plans. You can say, "Look, these are the changes we 9 want to make. We want to move some people from 10 Commissioners Precinct 2 and Commissioners Precinct 3, some 11 from 1 into 2, and we want it to be on these roads. 12 And, then, when the census information comes 13 to our office, within days after we have it, we can get you 14 an analysis of your plan, and then we can have multiple 15 proposals of ways that you can redistrict and solve your 16 problem, come up with your redistricting. So, then, a few 17 days after the census information is actually available, 18 you'll have hard -- hard copy plans and then you can decide 19 if you want to hold hearings, other than obviously a hearing 20 in court, which you'll have to have to adopt it, or whether 21 or not you want to put the plans out in the public library 22 for people to look at or whatever. Even at the rates that 23 we're charging -- I mean, we're only 45 minutes down the 24 street. We set $1,000 as a cost of a hearing, but that's if 25 we -- if we do the transcription, pay for the transcription 62 1 and everything else. If you pay for transcription or if we 2 do it by tape recorder, obviously, we can -- we can cut 3 those costs, too. But, we think we can get all of our plans 4 to you so you'll be in a position to adopt it before the 5 legislature goes out of session. 6 And, let me tell you why I think that's 7 important. There are 13 states that are either wholly 8 covered or primarily covered by the Voting Rights Act. And, 9 most states don't have as many County Commissioners as we 10 have here in Texas, but they've got a lot, and they've all 11 got a lot of cities and school districts and special 12 accounts and water districts and everything else, and 13 everything is going to go to the Department of Justice at 14 the same time. And, the most important thing I can tell 15 you, after dealing with the Department of Justice under -- 16 under the Voting Rights Act for 30 years, is you've got to 17 get it in early. If you get it in early, we can get you 18 precleared. There's no danger of -- of the elections not 19 being held or somebody filing a lawsuit against you because 20 a plan hasn't been formally adopted. And, then you can get 21 about your business. 22 There's a couple other things I wanted to 23 say, while I was listening to the other proposals. You 24 asked very good questions, I think. I mentioned that if 25 you've got a fully matured G.I.S. 911 system, we can do -- 63 1 we can do a lot with that. As far as the gully lines are 2 concerned, believe it or not, a lot of gully lines are 3 census lines, and so -- but what we're advising our clients 4 is, as long as we've got the hood up in the redistricting, 5 let's make as many changes as are necessary. So, a lot of 6 counties do want to -- Uvalde, for example, uses a lot of -- 7 of ranch lines, survey lines, which are not census lines. 8 And for those, I think we're going to try and get back to 9 the census, 'cause it's going to be easier for them to do a 10 lot of stuff. 11 The -- you know, some of our counties want 12 us -- they say, "We've got three school districts or four 13 school districts, and is there some way that we can have our 14 voting lines -- our voting precinct lines contiguous with 15 the school district lines? Because the school districts 16 want to use our voter registration information." And, yes, 17 we can do that at the same time. The issue on splitting 18 blocks, usually a census block only has 20, 30, 40 people in 19 it. If you split it, when I submit something to the 20 Department of Justice with a split in it, I say, "If 21 everybody lived on this side of the line, it's this number. 22 If everybody lived on that side of the line, the number is 23 this, and this is the formula we use to project and this is 24 what I think the real answer is." But, usually we're only 25 talking about 30, 40 people, and that's simple; Bob's right 64 1 about that. 2 I suppose, other than price, what is the 3 other reason you ought to -- I think you ought to hire us, 4 and I think the reason you ought to hire us is because we're 5 the only firm and I think the only people that are going to 6 propose to you that have been on both sides of this issue. 7 We've litigated against counties and we've redistricted 8 counties. The first county that I sued back in 1971 as a 9 lawyer, three years later I married the daughter of one of 10 the Commissioners. 11 (Laughter.) 12 MR. KORBELL: So, that -- so I've been 13 redistricting that -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very successful. 15 MR. KORBELL: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. 16 We -- in fact, we've got that contract this year again. 17 So -- so, we have that experience. And you think you guys 18 have got topographical problems. Over in El Paso County, 19 when we did the single member districts for the legislature 20 for the first time back in 1977, we had the -- the mountain 21 with a bombing range on top of it, which was in between both 22 sides of the Republican State Representative district that 23 we were trying to draw. In those days, I was expert witness 24 for the -- for all the disadvantaged minorities in Texas, 25 which included Blacks, Hispanics, and Republicans. And 65 1 we've been on both sides of that issue, as Rolando said. I 2 did Uvalde ten years ago -- or helped them out after they 3 had a problem, and I had sued them before. I've done -- I 4 mean, most of the urban legislative lines I've drawn -- and 5 we work with defendants all the time, so -- . If you've got 6 any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Bill? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Buster? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any, 11 thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. I'm -- 13 MR. KORBELL: Thanks. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Judge, do you or your people 15 have any questions? 16 MR. WOLF: The issue of coordinating voter 17 district lines with school district lines was a big issue a 18 couple years ago. We've been looking for a solution ever 19 since. 20 MR. KORBELL: Once you do it, it's easy after 21 that. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: One question that I have, 23 Mr. Rios. Is your firm involved in the suit against the 24 City here? 25 MR. RIOS: Yes, we're representing the -- the 66 1 Hispanic community. We also were involved in the school 2 district, but we worked it out with them and we actually 3 drew their plan for the school district. They have a 4 five -- and we may end up doing the plan again this year. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, thank you. 6 MR. RIOS: Thank you. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any follow-up questions? Any 8 discussion? 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Not here. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: I want to thank each of you 11 for the time to come and visit with us. It's been very 12 informative. We have a difficult decision ahead of us. I'm 13 not sure if we'll take this up on the 14th or the 28th. We 14 will take it up for decision this month. In the event 15 anyone wants to sharpen a pencil and refine their proposals, 16 as chief budget officer of this county, I would encourage 17 you to take a look at any savings you might accommodate, 18 either through multiple representation in this area or 19 other -- other opportunity, but either at -- either the 14th 20 or the 28th, we will hopefully make a decision as to where 21 we're going to go, because I think we all appreciate the 22 benefit of making an early choice so that we could know 23 who's going to be working with us and so that you'll have 24 the luxury of doing things other than in the pressure cooker 25 like in the spring of 1991. So, once again, thank you for 67 1 coming. We appreciate it. Buster, did you have -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, yes, I was 3 wondering if we ever get down to the bottom line. Is 4 Mr. Heath going to provide us with a fixed-fee plan? 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: We're going to give him the 6 opportunity to do what he thinks is in his best interests. 7 Mr. Bass can and Mr. Rios can, so -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Thank you all. We are 10 adjourned. 11 (Workshop adjourned at 3:45 p.m.) 12 - - - - - - - - - - 13 14 STATE OF TEXAS | 15 COUNTY OF KERR | 16 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 17 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 18 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 19 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 20 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 4th day of February, 21 2000. 22 23 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 24 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 25 Certified Shorthand Reporter