[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[A. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America and Texas Flags.]
[B. County Judge will call roll, note date, time, and location of meeting, and certify a quorum is present.]
[C. PUBLIC COMMENT: This section provides the public the opportunity to address the Commissioners Court on any issues within its jurisdiction. The Commissioners Court may not take formal action on any requests made during the Public Comment period which are not on the Agenda, but can refer such requests to County staff for review if appropriate.]
[1. Canvass the election returns for the November 2, 2021, Constitutional Amendment Election.]
[00:26:42]
ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. WE HAD A VERY LOW TURNOUT.
[00:26:47]
>> WE DID. WE UNFORTUNATELY MIRRORED THE STATE:
[00:26:52]
>> WOULD YOU SHARE THAT WITH EVERYBODY?
[00:26:55]
>> WELL, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT LAWS ARE IMPORTANT. I
[00:26:58]
HEAR A LOT, IF THERE'S A PERSON NOT ON THE BALLOT, IT DOESN'T[00:27:03]
MATTER. ANOTHER THING REALLY IS THEY'RE CONFUSING, RIGHT, THE WAY THAT THE PROPOSITIONS ARE WRITTEN, I HEAR THAT A LOT, WHY ARE THEY WRITTEN THIS WAY, IT'S CONFUSING TO FOLKS. I WISH THAT THE LEGISLATURE WOULD PASS A BILL THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TOWRITE IN PLAIN LANGUAGE. >> SO, WHAT WAS OUR AVERAGE?
WHAT WAS OUR? >> I THINK WE HAD 6% OR 7%.
ABOUT THE SAME ACROSS THE STATE. >> SO, YOU GUYS KNOW, THAT'S A VERY, LOW, LOW, TURNOUT. BUT, I WILL SAY THE ONE THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR THAT EFFECTED COUNTIES DID PASS.
>> YES, IT DID. >> IN FACT, THEY ALL PASSED. I WILL SAY THAT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE WORKED TOGETHER WITH BOTH THE DEM DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES, WE DID OUR PART, WE GAVE EVERYONE THAT WANTED TO VOTE AN EASILY ACCESSIBLE LOCATION TO VOTE. AND THAT'S
WHAT WE DO. >> I VOTED AT LA RATIMA AND AMENT I WANT TO SAY TO THOSE ELECTION VOLUNTEERS, THEY DO A GREAT JOB. FROM THE SAFETY ASPECT TO THE FRIENDLY FACTOR TO THE LOCATION IT WAS REALLY WONDERFUL, OF COURSE, HERE AT THE COURT HOUSE, WE HAD EARLY VOTING AND A LOT OF PEOPLE AVAILED THEMSELVES OF THAT AS WELL.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. THOSE WERE THE COMMENTS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THESE OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR THE 2021 JOINT CONSTITUTIONAL ELE ELECTION, AS PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY CLERK AND CERTIFIED BY THE COUNTY CLERK.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU YOU ALL FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND THANK YOU FOR THANKING THE WATCHING JUDGES AT LA RATIMA.
WE COULD NOT HAVE AN ELECTION WITHOUT ALL THE FOLKS THAT WORK THE ELECTIONS IT TAKES A BIG TEAM.
>> AND AS A COURT WE RAISED THE HOURLY AMOUNT OF SALARY, AND I'M GLAD BECAUSE I THINK THAT THEY DESERVE THAT.
>> THEY APPRECIATE IT AND THANK YOU.
[2. Discuss and consider adopting an Order establishing new Commissioner Precinct Boundaries for the purposes of redistricting related to the 2020 U.S. Census.]
>> YES. OKAY, I'LL MOVE ONTO ITEM NUMBER TWO WHICH IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDER ESTABLISHING NEW PRECINCT BOUNDARIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF REDISTRICTING RELATED TO THE 2020 U.S. CENSUS, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT OUR COUNSEL, JOSE GARZA JOINED US VIA ZOOM. AND I'M GOING TO OPEN UP AND ASK A FEW QUESTIONS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CREATE A LITTLE BIT OF DIALOG BASED UPON THE PUBLIC COMMENT I HEARD THIS
[00:30:01]
MORNING. I USUALLY DON'T FEEL THIS WAY, EVEN WHEN PEOPLE DO THINGS TO ME OR PERSONALLY, OR POLITICALLY, USUALLY, I COME OUT BOXING. THAT'S JUST MY NATURE. I FEEL REALLY I'M VERY SAD AND I'M REALLY LIKE MY HEART IS BEATING REALLY FAST BECAUSE I'M NOT USED TO THIS. I'M NOT USED TO COMING INTO COURT WHERE ON WEDNESDAY I FELT SO GOOD ABOUT ONE MAN ONE VOTE, I FELT SO GOOD ABOUT HAVING THE LELEAGUE OF WON VOTERS, A NONPARTISAN GROUP THAT WE AS ELECTIVES LOOK TO TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE. WE HAD AN EXPERT IN THE ROOM NOT ONLY WITH OUR OWN COUNSEL BUT ALSO MR. DOWLING WHO SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS. I FELT GOOD ABOUT ESTABLISHING THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING WORKING GROUP. I FELT GOOD ABOUT SAYING, BISHOP'S NOT IN, THAT'S A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST, WE NEED TO GET THAT IN. I FELT GOOD WHEN COMMISSIONER CHESNEY SAID, I LIKE REPRESENTING MY FOLKS, I REALLY WANT TO KEEP ONLY ONE PRECINCT SPLIT. WE GAVE TIME FOR JOSE GARZA TO WORK THE NUMBERS AND WE ASKED QUESTIONS, I FELT GOOD, I WENT TO MY OFFICE, DIDN'T TALK TO ANYBODY, WENT TO MY OFFICE TO WORK, CAME OUT, UNDERSTANDING WHEN I SAID IT WAS AN OPEN, FAIR, AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS, I MEANT IT, FOR ME. I THINK THAT WHAT WE HAVE ELUDED TO NEEDS FURTHER EXPLANATION BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TRANSPIRED. AND IT'S UP TO THEM TO DECIDE HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT. FOR MY PART, AS A COUNTY JUDGE UNDER THE JUDICIAL COUNTY OF ETHICS, WE DON'T ENDORSE NOR DO WE GET INVOLVED IN THAT REGARD ON A PERSONAL LEVEL. BUT WHAT I THINK THAT WE'RE COMMITTED TO DOING HERE AS THE COURT IS JUST SAYING HERE'S WHAT WE DID. AND, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL, THAT MEANS THE DEVIATION HAS TO BE BELOW 10%, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE, IN MY OPINION, THAT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING BY HERNANDEZ VE VE VERSUS NUECES COUNTY, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE PRECLEARANCE ANYMORE, I TOOK THAT VERY SERIOUSLY, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I LOOKED AT, I DON'T KNOW WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. ALL I WANTED TO BE CERTAIN OF IS THAT WE HAD ONE MAN ONE VOTE AND HAD STANDARD DEVIATION THAT IS MET THAT ONE MAN ONE VOTE AND MADE SURE WE CARRIED ON THE CONCEPT THAT WE'RE GOING TO GROW AS A COMMUNITY. AND CERTAIN COMMUNITIES ARE GROWING BIG TIME. AND WE WERE 35%, WE WERE 3.5 TIMES CONSTITUTIONAL, WE HAD TO CHANGE, THERE WAS NO WAY AROUND IT. AND I EXPECTED THAT EVERY COMMISSIONER WOULD FEEL LIKE THEY HAD CERTAIN THINGS THEY WANTED AND WE WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THEM AND WE DID. BUT WHAT WAS NOT KNOWN, OR WAS NOT TOLD, IS THAT A POLITICAL OPPONENT WAS CUT OUT OF THAT PRECINCT AND ADDED TO PRECINCT 4. AND WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR NOT, I'M CERTAIN IT'S LEGAL, BECAUSE MR. GARZA WOULD DO NOTHING TO REPRESENT ANYTHING ILLEGAL, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT AS A JUDGE. HE HAD NEVER EVER DO THAT, SO, NOTHING ILLEGAL HAS TRANSPIRED HERE. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I DO NOT WANT TO BE A PART AND WAS NOT A PART OF THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY. IF YOU'RE PROUD TO TAKE THAT PRECINCT OUT, THEN BE PROUD TO SAY THAT YOU DID IT. IF YOU WERE MORE WORRIED ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU MISSED BISHOP, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALSO JUST AS CLEAR AND APOLOGETIC ABOUT TAKING OUT PRECINCT 3. THAT WAS NOT TOLD TO ME, IT WAS NOT TOLD TO THE PUBLIC, AND AGAIN, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL, BECAUSE MR. GARZA WOULD NEVER LET US DO THAT, BUT WE HAVE THE POWER TO AMEND, I BELIEVE, BUT I'LL ASK MR. GARZA IN MY MOTION IN JUST A MOMENT WILL BE TO AMEND SUCH THAT THE DEVIATION, AGAIN, I'M ADAMANT ABOUT HAVING A SUPER LOW DEVIATION AND ADAMANT ABOUT THE POPULATIONS TO BE IN COOPERATION WITH WHERE WE[00:35:03]
WERE. BUT IF YOU WANT TO STAND UP HERE AND HAVE THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS CHEER YOU AND APPLAUD YOU BECAUSE YOU WERE FAIR AND TRANSPARENT, WE DO NOT DESERVE THAT. BUT, I KNOW THAT I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT. AND WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHO DID? BECAUSE, YOU OWE AN EXPLANATION TO THIS COURT. NOT BECAUSE YOU DID ANYTHING ILLEGAL, BUT BECAUSE YOU SAT THERE AND ALLOWED PEOPLE TO CHEER FOR YOU THAT YOU WERE FAIR, OPEN, AND TRANSPARENT. NOW, I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TODAY, I MEAN THIS EXACT MOMENT BECAUSE WE WOULD NEED TO IF I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THAT PRECINCT 3 BE BROUGHT BACK IN -- I'M SORRY, IF THE VOTING PRECINCT WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK INTO 2, THEN, OBVIOUSLY, IT WOULD NOT BE IN FOUR AND COMMISSIONER CHESNEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT CORRECT AGAIN FOR HIS PRECINCT. SO, IN OTHER WORDS, HE WOULD HAVE TO GET MAY BE ANOTHER PRECINCT TO MAKE UP FOR THOSE AMOUNT OF VOTERS THAT HE HAS ABSORBED IN PRECINCT 3 AND FOR THAT, I WOULD HAVE TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS OF JOSE GARZA. I ALSO WISH THAT COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ AND IN FAIRNESS TO HIM, HE DID TELL US ON WEDNESDAY THAT HE COULD NOT BE AVAILABLE ON FRIDAY, BEFORE THIS BEFORE I KNEW ABOUT THIS, BUT I THINK HE SHOULD, WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS SOMETHING LIKE WE'VE HEARD IN PUBLIC COMMENT AND AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE, I WISH HE COULD JUMP ON THE PHONE AND I'M WILLING TO RECESS TO ASK HIM IF HE WOULD DO THAT, BECAUSE HE HAS A RIGHT TO ANSWER, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S IMPORTANT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY FAIRNESS MATTERS IN THIS COURTROOM, AND TO OUR PUBLIC, THEN IT MUST BE FAIR. MAY BE THERE'S ANOTHER REASON THAT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT, AND I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY LET US KNOW WHAT IT WAS, BUT, AGAIN, I WANT TO REITERATE THAT YOU KNOW A LOT OF THINGS ARE PAINFUL ABOUT POLITICS. AND, I WAS DETERMINED THAT WE WOULD DO THIS RIGHT, BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN DONE SO WRONG BEFORE. FOR ME, THE WAY WE DID IT WAS WE HAD SO LITTLE TIME, WE DO HAVE TO ADOPT AN ORDER TODAY, THAT'S A MUST, BY THE WAY, BUT WE HAD SO LITTLE TIME AND I'M NOT NEGATING THE FACT THAT I THINK WE DID A GREAT JOB ON THAT ONE MAN ONE VOTE AND THE HISPANIC POPULATION ALL THAT, BUT WHEN THERE'S A PIECE OF IT THAT'S SORT OF BEING VERY MISLEADING, WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT. WELL, I HAVE TO ADDRESS YOU. I HAVE TO HELL YOU I DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. AND I WOULD HAVE NEVER, AT LEAST, GONE AWAY WITHOUT SAYING YOU MUST SHARE THAT. IF YOU'RE PROUD OF IT, IF YOU ASKED FOR IT, IF THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT, THEN JUST TELL US ABOUT IT. BECAUSE I THINK ALL OF US WOULD HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT. AND THAT WAY, I COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST, HAD THE FEELING THAT WE VOTED IN A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS UNDERSTANDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS. BUT, AGAIN, I DON'T GO AROUND ASKING PEOPLE WHERE THEY LIVE WHEN THEY FILE FOR OFFICE. AND BY THE WAY, THIS HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES BEFORE IN TEXAS POLITICS. WE'RE NOT THE FIRST OR THE LAST. SADLY, BUT DON'T LET THEM CHEER FOR YOU, DON'T COME IN AND DON'T DO THAT, DON'T BE DISINGENUOUS.I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I AM, AND I'M PROUD OF IT, I'M REAL, I SAY WHAT I MEAN AND I DO WHAT I SAY AND I'M VERY, VERY, DISTURBED WITH THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY OF WHAT HAPPENED WITH REGARDS TO THAT PRECINCT. COMMISSIONERS, I NEED TO ASK COUNSELOR JOSE GARZA, JOSE, DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND TODAY AND WOULD I BE ABLE TO ASK A QUESTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COURT IF THAT PARTICULAR, IF IT WAS THE WILL, AND IT MAY NOT BE, OKAY, I MAY
[00:40:03]
BE THIS IS, A QUESTION. IT'S A QUERY, BUT IT WAS THE WILL OF THE COURT, COULD WE ASK WETHER OR NOT THAT PRECINCT THAT WAS CHANGED INTO PRECINCT 4, AND REMEMBER WE WERE TRYING TO LOSE PEOPLE FROM PRECINCT 4 NOT GAIN IT. IF THIS PARTICULAR PRECINCT WAS MOVED IN FOR THIS PARTICULAR REASON, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO OFFSET THAT IF WE MOVE IT HAD BACK BUT THEN MR. CHESNEY WOULD NEED MORE POPULATIONS. AND I KNOW WE SLICED AND DIED 125, AND THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER ONE. BUT HE WANTED TO HAVE ALL HIS PEOPLE, SO, MAY BE HE CAN HAVE ALL HIS PEOPLE IN 125, OR AT LEAST MORE OF THEM TO OFFSET THREE. THAT'S TWO QUESTION, CAN WE AMEND AND COULD WE LOOK AT THE BREAKDOWN IF THAT WAS THECOURT'S WILL? >> SO, IF I COULD PREFACE THE ANSWER TO THOSE QUESTIONS WITH SORT OF MY ROLE IN THIS, SO, LET ME START BY SAYING, THAT I WAS NOT INSTRUCTED OR URGED BY ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN THE STRUCTURE OF PLAN BB. NOW, I'VE HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS WITH MOST OF THE COMMISSIONERS, OR ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND WITH COUNTY JUDGE, AND I HAVE NOT BEEN INSTRUCTED ON PARTICULAR PRECINCTS, EXCEPT IN THE LAST MEETING IN WHICH WE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ROBSTOWN AND BISHOP. AND THAT'S THE ONLY INSTANCE IN WHICH SPECIFIC PRECINCTS WERE URGED. MY PURPOSE IN DRAWING THE PLAN AS I HAD, BB WHICH WE MODIFIED TO BBB WAS TO ADDRESS THE THREE ISSUES THAT, YOUR HONOR, YOU MENTIONED, COMPLIANCE WITH ONE PERSON ONE VOTE, MAKING SURE THAT THE MINORITY DISTRICTS WERE MAINTAINED AND TO ADDRESS THE REDISTRICTING PRINCIPALS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, COMPACTNESS, CONTINUITY, ET CETERA. SO, WITH REGARD TO VOTING PRECINCT 3, I WAS NOT INSTRUCTED SPECIFICALLY TO MOVE IN ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER.
I WAS LOOKING AT A STRAIGHT LINE TO MAKE THE DISTRICT MORE COMPACT AND MAKING THE POPULATION AS EQUAL AS POSSIBLY.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, COMMISSIONER CHESNEY HAS CONSISTENTLY URGED ME NOT TO MOVE PEOPLE OUT OF HIS DISTRICT UNLESS I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ONE PERSON ONE VOTE. VOTING PRECINCT 3 IS NOT IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF ONE PERSON ONE VOTE, IT DOES MAKE THE DISTRICTS MORE COMPACT. SO, THAT AS TO SORT OF PREFACE MY THEN LEGAL DISCUSSIONS HERE, YES, IT IS, AS I UNDERSTAND THE AGENDA ITEM PLACED BEFORE THE COURT, IT WOULD BE LEGAL FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO TAKE UP THE REDISTRICTING PLAN AND EITHER ADOPT A SUBSTITUTE PLAN OR AMEND BBB. AND THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT YES, YOU CAN MOVE PRECINCT 3 BACK. VOTING PRECINCT 3 BACK INTO COMMISSIONER PRECINCT 2 AND BALANCE OUT THE POPULATION SO THAT YOU DON'T DIMINISH ONE PERSON ONE VOTE FOR MOVING THE POPULATION OF PRECINCT 5 BACK INTO PRECINCT 4 WHICH I ASSUME COMMISSIONER CHESNEY WOULD BE ALL RIGHT WITH. BECAUSE 125 HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY IN HIS DISTRICT IN HIS COMMISSIONER PRECINCT DISTRICT AND THAT WOULD BE MOVING POPULATION FROM THAT PRECINCT BACK INTO HIS DISTRICT. AS IT STANDS NOW IN BBB, PRECINCT 125 IS SPLIT, SO IT WOULD BE LESS SPLIT IF WE MOVED SOME OF THAT POPULATION BACK INTO COMMISSIONER PRECINCT 4.
AND MR. RIOS IS ON THE LINE AND HE CAN GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS SO WE COULD SEE EXACTLY WHAT IMPACT THAT WOULD HAVE IF WE
[00:45:01]
MOVE VOTING PRECINCT 3 BACK INTO COMMISSIONER PRECINCT 2 AND IF WE COULD BALANCE THAT OUT WITH THE POPULATION FROM 125. MY GUESS IS THAT WE CAN. MY GUESS IS ALSO THAT THAT WOULD NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE GOALS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS SET ABOUT PROTECTING THE MINORITY VOTING INTERESTS. AND I THINK WE CAN COME UP WITH A BALANCED POPULATION THAT IS EQUIVALENT OR PRETTY CLOSE TO EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WE ACHIEVED WEDNESDAY NIGHTWITH THE BALANCE OF POPULATION. >> JUDGE, YOU'RE COMMENT ABOUT COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ NOT BEING HERE IS RELEVANT. IF, IN FACT, YOU DESIRE OR THE COURT DESIRES TO DO WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE HEADING TOWARDS DOING, WE AT LEAST NEED DO THAT WITH A FULL COURT. AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE MR. GARZA'S EXPLANATION HE REPEATEDLY SAID TWICE THAT NO ONE DID ANYTHING WRONG HERE AND NO ONE ASKED FOR PRECINCTS TO BE MOVED AROUND BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A VERY COMPELLING STATEMENT. AND I
REPEATEDLY THROUGHOUT -- >> I'M GOING TO HELP YOU. I
WANT TO HELP YOU. >> AND IF I CAN LET YOU KNOW, JACK'S ASSISTANCE HAS LET US KNOW THAT HE IS AVAILABLE AT
10:30. >> I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW
>> THEN, THAT'S ONE THING, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE BECAUSE I GET PEOPLE ARE SUSPECT BUT MR. GARZA JUST CAME ONLINE AND SAID TWICE IN HIS CONVERSATIONS AND QUITE HONESTLY, I CALLED HIM YESTERDAY AND ASK HIM THE SAME QUESTION AND HE SAID TWICE IN THE CONVERSATION AND SAID YESTERDAY, NO ONE ASKED HIM TO MOVE PRECINCTS AROUND, BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, RIGHT? AND HE'S JUST SAID THAT, SO I THINK THAT'S A REAL IMPORTANT PARENT OF THE TRANSPARENCY. NOW, PEACE PART A. PART B IS GETTING COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ HERE TO BE HERE, SO DO WE RECESS UNTIL 10:30 BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S
FAIR TO START ANY OF THIS. >> SO, TWO THINGS, YES, I'M WILLING TO RECESS, OKAY. BUT, FIRST OF ALL, THIS DOCUMENT FOR THE RECORD IS WHAT WE PUT ONLINE AND WHAT ALL COMMISSIONERS KNOW ABOUT. AND THIS IS WHAT WE CALL A POSTED MEETING. AND YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION AS AN ELECTED TO BE AT THESE POSTED MEETINGS, AND I HEAR YOU AND I'M GOING TO, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF IT, I'M HAPPY TO RECESS, BUT, LET'S BE VERY CLEAR, IF YOU'RE AN ELECTED, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HERE, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO CALL AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE DISCUSSING SOMETHING IMPORTANT,
YOU NEED TO JUMP ONLINE. >> BUT, I UNDERSTAND, AND I'LL
DO THAT. >> HOLD ON, JUDGE, THAT'S NOT
FAIR. >> JUDGE, I HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THAT, THOUGH, BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU, LAST WEEK THIS ITEM WOULD NOT BE ON THE AGENDA UNLESS I ASKED BELINDA TO PLACE IT THERE.
I WAS LOOKING AT WORST CASE SCENARIO OF A DECISION WEDNESDAY, THEN WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING POSTED FOR FRIDAY BECAUSE THURSDAY WOULD NOT BE A CARRY OVER FOR RECESS TO WEDNESDAY BECAUSE THE COURT HOUSE WAS CLOSED. I'M SAYING THIS NOT BECAUSE I'M CHOOSING SIDES, I'M SAYING THIS BECAUSE WE WOULD NEVER HAD DISCUSSED THIS. WE DEALT WITH THIS WEDNESDAY, AND THAT MAY MAKE SOME OF MY FRIENDS THINK I'M SUPPORTING ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, I HAVE AN ISSUE THAT THIS WAS NEVER ON THE AGENDA AND WE AGREED TO, AND SIGNED THESE ORDERS ON WEDNESDAY. AND SO, I WAS NOT EVEN GOING TO BE ON THIS MEETING UNTIL I RECEIVED A TEXT MESSAGE THAT ALL THIS WAS GOING ON. BECAUSE WHEN WE LEFT WEDNESDAY, ALL I KNEW AND ALL I WAS TOLD WAS WE ONLY NEED TWO COMMISSIONERS HERE WEDNESDAY TO CANVAS THE VOTE AND THAT WAS IT. WHEN I REALIZED, THAT WAS MORE AND OBVIOUSLY, I RUSHED TO GET ONLINE. I HAVE A COMMITMENT THIS MORNING AND 10:30 MAY NOT WORK FOR ME. THERE ARE SEVERAL ISSUES I HAVE WITH ALL OF THIS, AND I WANT TO KNOW --
>> UNTIL WE ADDRESS IT, IT'S STILL A POSTED AGENDA ITEM. IN OTHER WORDS, I STILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT, EVEN IF IT'S A BACKUP, IT STILL HAS TO BE TENDED TO. I HEAR YOU, AND LIKE I SAID, WE'RE GOING TO ASK COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ.
>> THANK YOU GOD I ASKED FOR THAT THEN.
>> THANK YOU GOD, AND YOU'RE RIGHT. AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I WANT TO THANK YOU, BECAUSE THAT WAS SMART.
>> JUDGE, IF YOU WANT TO OPEN UP THE PROCESS THEN IT NEEDS TO
[00:50:02]
BE REOPENED AND STATED FOR A FULL MEETING AND REDO THIS ALL OVER AGAIN BECAUSE WE HAD 50 PEOPLE IN HERE WHO ALL AGREED, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR ON A FRIDAY MORNING WHEN NOBODY EVEN KNOWS THIS IS WHERE THIS WAS GOING TO JUST SAY, LET'S JUST AMEND IT. IT'S NOT THAT EASY, THERE WERE NUMBERS THAT CAME BACK FROM JOSE THAT WERE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE COULD START OVER, OF WHICH, IF THAT'S WHAT THE COURT WANTS TO DO, I DON'T THINK IT'S A SIMPLE. AND IT'S NOT FAIR TO FIX IT FOR ONE GUY, EITHER.>> NOR IS IT FAIR TO DENY THE VOTERS, EITHER. I MEAN, WE DID NOT PUT THAT UP, RIGHT, THAT WAS NOT DISCUSSED.
>> I AGREE, AND I DON'T THINK IT CAN BE THESE EIGHT PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP. WE NEED TO INCLUDE EVERYTHING. WE NEED TO GIVE EVERYBODY OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE.
>> I WILL TELL YOU THAT I'M GOING TO DISCUSS THAT WITH THE COUNT ATTORNEY WHEN WE TAKE A BREAK AS TO WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE ON TIME. BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT AND MR. GARZA, I WOULD ASK IF YOU COULD PLEASE STAY ON THE LINE, BUT, DCH
>> JUDGE, MR. GARZA DREW THIS WITH NO SPECIFIC INPUT FROM ANY COMMISSIONER OR JUDGE ON PRECINCTS, AND HE TOO, PROBABLY
DIDN'T KNOW WHERE ANYBODY LIVED. >> MR. GARZA, I KNOW YOU DID NOT KNOW WHERE ANYBODY LIVED. BUT I THINK I'M GOING TO ASK A LITTLE HARDER MORE DIRECT QUESTIONSES. AND EVEN THOUGH WE ENTRUSTED YOU TO DRAW THE LINES, I DON'T THINK IT'S A FAIR REPRESENTATION AFTER MY DIALOG WITH YOU YESTERDAY TO TRY AND ARTICULATE TO THIS COURT THAT IT WAS NOT KNOWN OR CONTEMPLATED THAT AT THE TIME SOMEBODY COULD BE CUT OUT AS YOU HAD SAID TO ME, IT'S DONE ALL OVER TEXAS. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST COMMISSIONERS COURT TO X OUT A POLITICAL OPPONENT, BUT, I WANTED TO STOP YOU, BRENT, BUT I COULDN'T QUICKLY ENOUGH BECAUSE I JUST COULDN'T DO IT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IF WE WERE TO PROBE FURTHER THAT IT WOULD BE A TRUE STATEMENT THAT THERE WAS NOT INPUT DESIRE AND OR CONSEQUENCE TO ELIMINATE AND PUT THAT PARTICULAR PRECINCT, THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE AND IT'S NOT A, IT WAS DELIBERATE AND THE QUESTION WAS ASKED. AND IF YOU WANT ME TO KEEP GOING DOWN THE LINE, YOU WILL NOT LIKE THE ANSWERS. AND SO, WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU, IS PLEASE HOLD ON THAT THOUGHT, BUT I'M WITH YOU AND REALLY APPRECIATE THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO FOLLOW WHAT I WOULD CALL A FAIR PROCESS.
BECAUSE, WHAT WAS DONE WAS NOT TRANSPARENT. IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL, BUT IT WAS NOT TRANSPARENT, AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, I DO BELIEVE AFTER SPEAKING WITH PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE SET OF FACTS, THAT THERE WAS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE PRECINCT 3 AND BRING IT TO YOU, AND YOU MUST HAVE AT LEAST NOTICED THAT YOU INHERITED A PRECINCT.
>> JUDGE, YOU'LL REMEMBER -- >> I MEAN I'M NOT BLAMING YOU, I'M JUST SAYING, YOU MUST HAVE NOTICED THAT.
>> IF YOU REMEMBER, TO THE BITTER END, I BEGGED THIS COURT TO NOT GIVE ME ADDITIONAL PRECINCTS AND TO LET ME KEEP MY
PRECINCTS. >> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, THE COURT WILL BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU BACK YOUR 125 SO THAT THE VOTERS GET TO MAKE DECISIONS IN AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WAY. BECAUSE WE DIDN'T AFFORD THEM THAT RIGHT. BECAUSE, PRECINCT 3 WAS GIVEN TO YOU FOR REASONS THAT WERE NOT ONE MONEY ONE VOTE AND THEY WERE GIVEN TO YOU, AND THAT WAS MR. GARZA MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN THE EFFECT OF IT, BUT THAT'S EXACT WHAT HAPPENED. AND THAT'S, AND AGAIN, WE HAVE A CHOICE TO MAKE AND THAT CHOICE IS, ONCE IT'S KNOWN TO US, WHAT WILL WE DO? ONCE YOU'VE SEEN IT, HOW WILL YOU UNSEE IT. THIS IS NOT A MATTER IT OF ONE MAN ONE VOTE OR HISPANIC POPULATION DISPARITY OR EVEN YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORHOODS OF INTEREST. NOW, COMPACTNESS IS IMPORTANT AND WE HAVE ARGUED COMPACTNESS, BUT IT WAS COMPACTNESS THAT GOT US TO THE BISHOP SITUATION AND WE CHANGED THAT. SO, MR. THUREMAN, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT? >> I WOULD.
>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU.
[00:55:01]
>>> THE ONLY REASON I ASK YOU, PAUL, IS BECAUSE I VALUE YOUR OPINION, AND SO IF YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD, I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THAT YOU WOULD BE HAPPY TO SHARE
WITH ME. >> AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS IS ME. NOT THE COMMISSIONER I'VE SEEN THE PROCESS FROM THE BEGINNING AND I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING FOR WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE SAYING. IT WAS A 5-0 VOTE IT CROSSED PARTY LINES, THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS PRAISED THE PROCESS, IT WAS OPEN, WE HAD HOW MANY MEETINGS, DID WE HAVE, TWO? OR THREE, MY APOLOGIES,
WHERE WAS THE CANDIDATE? >> THEY DIDN'T KNOW.
>> WELL, THE CANDIDATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE.
>> THE AUDIENCE CAN'T BE DIALOGING TOGETHER.
>> NO DIALOG. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> NO DIALOG. >> BUT, HERE'S THE THING, EVEN SO, IF I WANTED TO RUN, AND I DO HAVE SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO RUN, THEY WERE JUST KICKED OUT OF THEIR DISTRICT, DO WE JUST CALL THEM AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT FOR THEM AS WELL? NO, YOU DON'T DO THAT. IT WAS FAIR AND BALANCED. LET ME GO ONTO SAY, THERE'S AN E-MAIL FROM MR. GARZA THAT COMMISSIONER CHESNEY WROTE, HE WANTED TO AFFIRM, LET ME JUST READ IT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY, I WOULD LIKE TO REAFFIRM WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT TODAY. YOU AND I HAD PRIVATE DISCUSSION AT ONE POINT DURING OUR REDISTRICTING PROCESS REGARDING PRECINCTING BEING ADDED TO DISTRICT FOUR, I CALLED YOU AND ASKED WHY A PROPOSED PRECINCT WAS ADDED WHEN I ALREADY GAVE UP OTHER VOTING PRECINCTS IN MY PRECINCTS. PROPOSED TO BE ADDED WHEN I ALREADY GAVE UP OTHER VOTING PRECINCTS IN MY PRECINCT BECAUSE MY PRECINCT WAS OVER THE LEGAL LIMIT WHEN I COULD HELP. DURING THAT TIME, I MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO YOU WHEN I DID THIS THROUGHOUT THE PUBLIC PROCESS, WHILE I WOULD BE HONORED TO REPRESENT ANYONE, I DID NOT WANT TO CHANGE. I ASKED YOU TO RELAY THAT TO COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ SINCE I WAS NOT COMMUNICATING WITH HIM DURING THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS THAT I WAS UNABLE TO TAKE ADDITIONAL PRECINCTS. YOU INDICATED THAT TO ME THAT YOU RELAYED THAT INFORMATION TO COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. AND HE'S ONLINE, HE CAN CONFIRM THAT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED HIMSELF. SO, WHAT YOU'RE DOING, IF YOU DO MOVE SOMEONE BACK INTO A PRECINCT BECAUSE HE WAS PUSHED OUT, THAT
IS IN MY OPINION GERRYMANDERING. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS. AND THANKS FOR ACTUALLY READING THE E-MAIL, BECAUSE THAT WAS GOOD TOO. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT CHANGES ANYTHING, IT DOESN'T CHANGE MY COMMENTS AT ALL. I AGREE WITH YOU, I LOVED WHAT WE DID. I LOVED THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, I LOVED ALL THE PUBLIC NOTICES, ALL OF THOSE THINGS, PAUL, THAT YOU JUST SAID, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH. I LOVED THE PROCESS, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT NOW IT'S COME TO MY ATTENTION AND THE COURT'S ATTENTION THROUGH PUBLIC COMMENT AND YESTERDAY'S ACTIVITIES, THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WASN'T DONE TRANSPARENT OR PUBLIC. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I'M SAYING THAT THE PROCESS I THOUGHT WAS TRANSPARENT AND PAIR FAIR, APPARENTLY, THERE WAS ANOTHER MOTIVE AND IF IT'S OKAY, WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT MOTIVE AND THAT'S WHERE I THOUGHT WE WERE BEING RECOGNIZED FOR SOMETHING UNTRUE AND THAT IS WHY, I THINK PUBLIC COMMENT IS BEING HEARD TODAY. AND WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND. IT WAS DUMB LUCK, AS COMMISSIONER MAREZ SAID, IT WASN'T ON PURPOSE, BUT MAY BE IT WAS GOD AS PLAN TO HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA TODAY. TIMOTHY IS ONLINE FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT. >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE, I APOLOGIZE FOR GETTING ON THIS CALL LATE AND I THOUGHT WE HAD EVERYTHING FINISHED ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT WHEN I WAS THERE, AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOU WOULD BRING ME AND OTHER FOLKS ONLINE WHO JUST GOT ONLINE RECENTLY, WHAT'S THE ISSUE AND WHAT'S GOING ON.
>> JUDGE, I THINK WE'RE GETTING FURTHER AND FURTHER INTO THIS TO WHERE HE'S NOT HEARING ANY OF THIS. AND LIKE COMMISSIONER MAREZ SAID, I WASN'T GOING TO BE HERE EITHER BECAUSE THIS WAS A CANVAS MEETING AND SOMEHOW THIS GOT POSTED, SO I SHOWED UP TO MAKE A PHYSICAL QUARORUM. I DOT THINK IT'S FAIR TO DO THIS
[01:00:05]
WITHOUT GONZALEZ. >> MR. DOWLING, THE ISSUE IS THAT WE'VE HAD, AS YOU KNOW WEDN
WEDNESDAYDOWING >> MR. DOWING, WE HAVE TO RECESS AND WE'RE GOING TO RECESS UNTIL 10:30 A.M., IT'S 10:00, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ WILL JOIN US AT 10:30 A.M., SO, WE'LL STAND IN RECESS. BY THE WAY, THE RULES, GUYS ARE THAT EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A QUORUM WITH THE NUMBER YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM OF THREE. SO, WHEN MR. HERNANDEZ LEAVES THE ROOM, WE LOSE THE QUORUM, IF HE COMES BACK, THEN WE GAIN THE QUORUM. BUT WE WANTED TO RECESS ANYWAY, BUT I WAS GOING TO EXPLAIN TO TIM WHAT'S GOING ON. I WILL HAVE BELINDA CALL YOU
RIGHT NOW, TIM. OKAY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> FOR THOSE OF YOU ONLINE, YOU'LL JUST NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU'LL SEE NOTHING EXCEPT MEETING IS
>> FOR THOSE OF YOU ONLINE WE'RE BACK FROM RECESS, IT'S NOW 11:03 A.M. AND WE DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OKAY, SO, HE'S NOT ONLINE BUT HE'S ON THE TELEPHONE, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER
GONZALEZ JOINING US. NO? >> BY PHONE?
>> SORRY, HE'S GOING TO CALL THE CONFERENCE LINE AND I'M GOING TO WAIT FOR THAT. BUT, JUST TO CLARIFY, BY THE WAY, WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY OUR COUNT ATTORNEY SHE WAS IN A VERY IMPORTANT MATTER FOR THE COUNTY BUT NOW SHE'S HERE AND MAY BE WE CAN ALSO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT MIGHT HAVE COME UP.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE WAITING FOR HIM TO CALL IN.
>> BUT HE CAN'T PARTICIPATE SINCE THERE'S NO VIDEO, AND COMMISSIONER MAREZ IS NOW GONE SO HE'S NOT GOING TO HEAR
EVERYTHING. >> HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
TIMOTHY. >> MR. DOWELL, I SEE YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP AND I'M WAITING TO SEE IF WE GET LUCKY AND COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ CALLS IN. I WANT TO CALL ON YOU, BUT, I THINK IN THE INTEREST OF NOT REPEATING, WE'RE GOING TO WAIT
JUST A MINUTE. >> THAT'S FINE, JUDGE, I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW AT THE TIME YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF REMARKS.
>> OF COURSE. >> AND, WHILE WE'RE WAITING I'LL JUST SHARE WITH YOU WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH MICHAEL GIBSON WHO WAS HERE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FIELD OF HONOR, AND IF YOU DIDN'T GET A CHANCE FOR THE NEXT THREE WEEKS, BY THE WAY, JUST FOR THE CLERK, I'M NOT GAVELLED IN YET.
>> WELL, I GUESS I DID, I GAVE YOU THE TIME. WELL, SORRY. I'M MAKING PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT FIELD OF HONOR. IS THAT RIGHT?
>> IN MY PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT FIELD OF HONOR IT WAS BEAUTIFUL YESTERDAY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT THE VETERAN'S CEMETERY BECAUSE MR. GIBSON AND I WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT ALSO IN PUBLIC COMMENT. YESTERDAY THE VETERAN'S CEMETERY DID NOT HAVE ANY VETERAN'S CEMETERY MEMBERS, FROM THE VETERAN'S LAND BOARD OF NUECES COUNTY THERE BECAUSE IT'S A STATE HOLIDAY AND SO, AS A STATE HOLIDAY, WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS BY THE WAY, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEIR CREW. AND BECAUSE THEIR CREW WASN'T THERE, THE BATHROOMS WERE LOCKED. ONCE WE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, A CONCERNED CITIZEN CALLED US, WE LITERALLY RAN OVER THERE, WE WERE REALLY CLOSE BY, FIVE MILES AWAY AT THE FIELD OF HONOR IN ROBSTOWN. AND OUR VETERAN'S OFFICER MADE SURE THAT THOSE AMENITIES WERE OPEN. NOW, WE REALIZE THAT LOCAL CONTROL MATTERS, RIGHT, BECAUSE NOW WE KNOW, HEY WE CAN'T DO THAT. SO WE'RE STARTING A CAMPAIGN TO MAKE THAT CHANGE AND IN NUECES COUNTY, WE'LL BRING IT UP IN FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS SO WE COULD PROVIDE OVERTIME, SO WE COULD HAVE COMPLETE, IN ORDER TO HAVE FULL STAFF AT THE VETERAN'S CEMETERY, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO
[01:05:03]
ADJUST FOR THAT AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL. SECONDLY, FLAGS ON THE HEADSTONES. SO, BARBARA CANALES, JJ, MAGGIE TURNER WAS THERE, AND TWO OTHER WITNESSES, WE ASKED FOR THE HEADSTONES TO HAVE FLAGS. WE WERE TOLD THAT THE STATE DID NOT WANT TO DO THAT. THEY WANTED TO RESERVE THAT FOR MEMORIAL DAY AND THEY GAVE US PERMISSION. EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE LOCAL CONTROL, GUYS, WE FOLLOW STATE RULES AND GUIDELINES, THEY GAVE US PERMISSION TO PHOT FLAGS ON THE PERIMETER. WE TOLD THEM WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA, I PERSONALLY ASKED A LOT OF VETERANS YESTERDAY, BECAUSE I'M ALWAYS TRYING TO LEARN AND UNDERSTAND PROTOCOL. AND WE BELIEVE EVERYBODY IN THAT CEMETERY IS A VETERAN. YOU KNOW HOW WE KNOW? YOU COULD ONLY BE BURIED THERE IF YOU'RE A VETERANS. AS WELL AS THE SPOUSES AS WELL. BUT SRIS THE VETERANS GO. MEMORIAL DAY ARE THOSE KILLED IN ACTION, AND WE CAN HONOR THEM DIFFERENTLY, BUT I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A VETERAN'S CEMETERY, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE FLAGS ON VETERAN'S DAY. THIS IS COMMON SENSE. I SPOKEN TO THE ROUND TABLE, I PUT A CALL IN AND I DIDN'T GET A RETURN CALL IN JUST YET. THE MINUTE THEY GET INTO THEIR OFFICE, THEY WILL SEE IT, WE'LL ADDRESS IT AND RECTIFY IT.WE SHOULD HAVE HAD FLAGS ON THE HEADSTONES AND WE NEED TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN AT THE STATE LEVEL. AND WE FEEL LIKE, WE NEED TO, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A HOLIDAY, CREATE SOME CREW, THAT WILL WORK, JUST LIKE WE DO FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, WE HAVE HOLIDAYS ALL THE TIME BUT WE HAVE AN OVERTIME CREW THERE.
BECAUSE IT'S VERY FORESEEABLE ON VET AN'S DAY PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO ACCESS THE LOVED ONE, THE LOCATION OF THEIR LOVED ONES, WHICH IS THE VETERAN'S CEMETERY. I KNOW COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ
WENT OUT THERE. >> YES, MA'AM, I DID.
>> AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO HIM FOR THAT. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS, YOU CALL, WE ANSWER, WE FIX IT. AND SO WE DID FIX THOSE BATHROOMS IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE IT WAS UNDER OUR ABILITY. BUT WE'LL NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO WRITE LETTERS, PROBABLY NEED TO PASS A RESOLUTION AND ASK THE STATE TO
RECONSIDER THAT PROTOCOL. >> I BELIEVE SO, JUDGE.
>> AND I'M GOING TO SIGN YOU UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, JUDGE. YES, AS SOON AS I GOT THE CALL I WENT OUT THERE, AND THANKS TO MR. HERNANDEZ HERE WHO LET US KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. AND I DID SPEAK TO SOME PEOPLE THAT HAD COME FROM SAN ANTONIO A MOTHER AND DAUGHTER, AND HER HUSBAND WAS CREMATED AND THE THING SHE TOLD ME, MAY BE JJ CAN LOOK INTO THIS, THE LETTERS ON HIS STONE ARE FADING AWAY. THE PAINT, SO WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE ALL CONCERNS THEY DID BRING UP.
AND I WAS TALKING TO A FAMILY FEBRUARY, APOLOGIZING FOR THEM HAVING TO CHANGE THEIR BABY ON A BENCH, AND THAT'S WHEN JJ DROVE UP AND OPENED UP THE RESTROOMS. WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS AND GET THEM FIXED. I WAS SURPRISED THAT THE OFFICE WAS CLOSED THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY IN THERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. AND JJ SAID, THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN CLOSED, BUT I MYSELF WORKED AT A FUNERAL HOME AND WE HAVE SERVICES AND WE HAVE SERVICES ON WEEKENDS, THERE, AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN OPEN. SO, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO GET WITH JJ AND GET ALL THIS
RIGHT. >> AND LIKE I SAID, WE TRIED, WE MET WITH THEM A WEEK BEFORE, AND SAID THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A GOOD THING FOR OUR COMMUNITY. AND THEY SAID THIS IS THE RULE.
IT'S REALLY A STATE ISSUE, JJ IS YOUR ADVOCATE. HE WANTS EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID AND I THINK WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT BY WORKING TOGETHER. I KNOW THAT THE STATE WILL ALWAYS LISTEN TO US. AGAIN, WE DID ASK, SOMETIMES WHEN YOU KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE, YOU GO AHEAD OF IT, AND WE DID, BUT NOW THAT THEY WILL HEAR FROM YOU, THE PUBLIC, I KNOW IT WILL MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. JUST FINISHING UP ON THE FIELD OF HONOR WHILE WE'RE WAITING, BUT I WOULD ASK SOMEBODY TO PLEASE
[01:10:03]
CALL HIM. ONE MORE TIME. ON THE FIELD OF HONOR IT WILL BE UP FOR A FEW MORE WEEKS AT THE FAIR GROUNDS, WE HAD AN AWESOME CROWD, AN AMAZING CEREMONY, A FLY OVER FROM THE COAST GUARD, COMMISSIONER MAREZ WAS THERE AND THAT WAS WONDERFUL, AND IT WILL BE UP. SO IF YOU MISSED IT, YOU CAN GO, THERE'LL BE A MASTER BOOK, IF IT'S YOUR LOVED ONE THAT HAS A FLAG THERE, IT WILL TELL YOU SECTION, ROW, AND NUMBER. AND IF YOUR VETERAN DOESN'T HAVE A FLAG BUT YOU WANT HIM TO BE HONORED IN THE FUTURE, HE WILL BE HONORED ON THE SERVICE FLAG, SO YOU DON'T HAVE SO PAY, IT WILL HAVE YOUR NAME. SO WE'RE WORKING ON THAT TOO.IT WAS REALLY, REALLY, BEAUTIFUL, I GOT TO POST THE FIRST FLAG WITH THE WIDOW AND I STOOD BACK AND WATCHED THAT SUNSET AND HER LOOK UP AT THE SKY AND THE FLAG WAIVING, IT WAS AS BEAUTIFUL AS IT COULD POSSIBLY BE. I THINK THAT SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO STOP AND BE PROUD OF THINGS THAT YOU BRING NOT FOREFRONT. I'M PROUD OF THAT ENTIRE STAFF AND CREW AND JJ AND HIS CREW, BUT WHAT GAVE ME THE MOST PRIDE WAS WHEN A NUECES COUNTY EMPLOYEE FROM THE FOREYARD CAME UP AND SAID, I'M HERE BECAUSE I'M A VETERAN AND I WANT YOU TO HELP ME FIND MY FLAG. THAT WAS THE BEST FEELING IN THE WORLD. AND I WANT TO SAY JENNY DOORSY WAS THERE, AND JUDGE ANNA KLINE.
IF YOU GET TIME, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE VETERANS DAY TO LOVE AND HONOR OUR VETERANS, GO OUT TO THE FIELD OF HONOR I'M TRYING TO GET THE NEWS CREWS THERE AGAIN, IT WAS PRETTY LATE AT NIGHT WHEN MAGGIE AND I LEFT, SO IT TOOK A SUPER LONG TIME TO GET ALL THOUSAND UP. NOW FROM THE MEDIA, GO OUT THERE. NOW IT LOOKS LIKE A FIELD OF HONOR, WHEN WE STARTED IT, IT WAS JUST A COUPLE OF FLAGS AND NOW IT'S A SEA OF FLAGS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE
ON THAT MATTER. >> I APPRECIATE IT, JUDGE, I THINK IT'S A GREAT PROJECT FOR THE COUNTY AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT EVERYONE DID ON THAT BECAUSE IT LOOKS VERY SPECIAL. I WAS OUT THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY FOR VETERAN'S DAY AND IT WAS AN AMAZING DEAL. AND I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD REMEMBER ALL THE TIME AND EVERYDAY, THAT EVERYDAY SHOULD BE VETERAN'S DAY, QUITE HONESTLY. SO, I SPENT A LOT OF TIME REFLECTING ON THAT YESTERDAY, AS THE PEOPLE IN THE COMPANY DID AND SO DID ALL THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES AS WELL. IT
WAS A SPECIAL DAY. >> AND THE CHILDREN MAKE CARDS, RIGHT? YOUR KIDS MADE CARDS? THEY MADE AMAZING CARDS.
>> IT'S AN AMAZING CEREMONY, I ALWAYS HATE TO CHOOSE THAT ONE BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY GOOD ONES, THERE'S A GOOD ONE IN
CORPUS CHRISTI TOO. >> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER, WE'RE FIVE IN THE COURT AND IT'S GOOD FOR YOU TO BE AT PORT A AND SOME OF US TO BE IN THE HIGH SCHOOL, AND COMMISSIONER MAREZ WAS IN ROBSTOWN AND I WAS AT THE MAYOR'S EVENT AT BEN GARZA. I LIKE THE WAY WE DO IT, BECAUSE WITH IT MEANS THAT WE'RE REPRESENTING EVERYONEWHERE.
>> SO, WE HAVE GOOD NEWS? >> COMMISSIONER MAREZ JOINED.
>> HE'S BY ZOOM? >> BY ZOOM. OKAY.
>> WE WILL, I'LL JUST REMIND EVERYBODY THE REASON WE RECESSED WAS TO HAVE COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ TO JOIN, I'M SORRY IT'S TAKING SO LONG BUT I DID DO WANT TO GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY.
THERE'LL BE A MOMENT WHERE WE WON'T BE ABLE TO PROCEED.
>> JUDGE, MAY BE, I GUESS WE SHOULD LET MR. DOWING SAY WHAT
HE HAS. >> MR. DOWING WOULD YOU UNMUTE,
WE'LL LET YOU PROCEED. >> THANK YOU. I GOT ON A LITTLE LATE ABOUT THE FIRST THING I HEARD WERE THE COMMENTS BY MR. THURMAN. AND I AGREE RAH HE HAD, I THINK THE PROCESS WAS FAIR WEDNESDAY NIGHT. AND I KNOW Y'ALL WERE VERY CANS VERY, BUSY YESTERDAY WITH THE COMMENDABLE VETERAN'S DAY ACTIVITIES THAT YOU WERE DOING. AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE SEEN THE E-MAIL I SENT CONGRATULATING FOR THE PROCESS YOU EMPLOYED. CULL
[01:15:01]
INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, I WANT TO BE SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNEW THAT THE MAP APPROVED ON WEDNESDAY STARTED WITH MAP BB THEN WE FIXED IT TO END THE SPLIT OF BISHOP AND IT BECAME MAP BBB RECOGNIZING BISHOP AND WE ALSO FIXED THE ROBSTOWN BEING SPLIT INTO DIFFERENT PRECINCTS, SO TWO POSITIVE CHANGES. AND THERE WERE TWO PRECINCTS, 120 AND 125 THERE WERE SPLIT AND WE CUT THAT DOWN TO ONE, WE GOT THAT DOWN TO 125 WHOLE IN PRECINCT 3 AND 125 AND TO GIVE MORE POPULATION TO MR. CHESNEY, WHY IT WAS MOVED IN 125 TO GIVE HIM MORE P.M. THAT'S HOW WE GOT THE MAP WE GOT. I GOT A MESSAGE IN THE CHAT AND A CALL FROM MR. ZAMORA A FEW MINUTES AGO, I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE IS LITTLE PRECINCT 3, THE VOTING PRECINCT 3 IS IN PRECINCT 4, AND THERE'S DISCUSSION ABOUT MR. CHESNEY PRECINCT, AND IT LOOKED LIKE FROM WHAT I COULD TELL, AA, BB, BB MODIFIED, A-1, A-2. ANYWAY WE HAVE A LOT OF MAPS THAT HAVE THAT CHANGE IN THEM FROM WHAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY. AND I THINK THE MAP FOR NUMBER ONE MADE IT PARTICULARLY CLEAR THERE WAS A CHANGE AND THAT LITTLE PRECINCT 3, VOTING PRECINCT 3 WOULD BE GOING INTO PRECINCT 4. THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SURPRISE TO ANYBODY. AND I KNOW THE LAW IS THAT YOU COULD DRAW LINES TO PROTECT INCUMBENTS, AND THE MESSAGE I GOT IN THE CHAT IS THERE'S A PERSON WHO LIVES IN VOTING PRECINCT 3 WHO WANTS TO RUN AGAINST MR. GONZALEZ, BUT THERE'S NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT POTENTIAL CANDIDATES, AND THE OTHER THING, AS FAR AS LEGALITIES, IS THE COURT SUPPOSED TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE, DON'T DRAW THE LIBS THIS WAY WHITE HOUSE MR. X LIVE IN A CERTAIN PRECINCT AND WE MAY WANT TO RUN AGAINST A SPECIFIC COMMISSIONER. I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY (INDISCERNIBLE) PROCESS. THE MAP APPROVED LAST NIGHT, FROM MY RECOLLECTION HAD THE LOWEST POPULATION OF ANY MAP THAT WE CAME UP WITH AND IT WAS AN IMPROVEMENT WITH THE MAPS PLUS THE OUTSTANDING DIALOG THE COURT HAD WITH THE PUBLIC, IT KEEPS THE RULE TOWNS IN TACT AND THERE'S ONLY ONE VOTING SPLIT. SO, I THINK NOW TO CHANGE IT AFTER THE FACT, THIS VERY GOOD MAP, TO MY WAY OF THINKING WOULD BE PRETTY CLEAR GERRYMANDERING, BECAUSE THE PRINCIPALS USED TO ADAPT THE MAP WEDNESDAY WERE ALL THE RIGHT PRINCIPALS, KEEP AREAS IN TACT, MINIMIZE POPULATION DEVIATION, THOSE ALL MAKE SENSE TO ADJUST THE MAP TO ACOME DADE SOMEONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO RUN AGAINST A PARTICULAR PERSON, TO ME, THAT WOULD JUST BE VERY PARTISAN AND UNWISE. AND SOMETHING THAT I MOST DE-STRESSING WATCHING LEGISLATURE VERY CLOSELY WHEN THEY DID THEIR DISTRICTING AND THAT'S HOW THEY DID IT AND THAT'S NOT AVY GOOD WAY TO REDISTRICT, WE ENDED UP IN MY OPINION NONFAIR MAPS ARRIVED AT A VERY NONTRANSPARENT PROCESS.AND WHAT YOU GUYS DID CULMINATING ON NOVEMBER 10TH, WAS EXTREMELY COMMENDABLE. I WOULD URGE YOU TO, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A MOTION AS OF NOW, BUT MY SUGGESTION TO YOU IS HAPPY TO HEAR WHAT OTHERS HAVE TO SAY, AND I HAVE AN OPEN MIND ON IT, BUT THE MOTIVATION IS TO JUST CHANGE A PRECINCT TO ACCOMMODATE A PERSON WHO WANTS TO RUN AGAINST A PARTICULAR PERSON, IN MY THINKING THAT'S IMPROPER. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MY COMMENTS.
>> ONE, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ ON THE TELEPHONE. AND I WOULD AGREE WITH 99% OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID EXCEPT FOR ONE OF THE FACTS THAT YOU ARE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION OF IS NOT CORRECT, I AGREE WITH YOU, A, IT WAS A GREAT PROCESS BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU ARTICULATED. I WANTED TO DO
[01:20:01]
EXACTLY WHAT WE DID. I ACTUALLY LEFT HERE THINKING, WELL, THAT'S NOVEL, WE ACTUALLY DID EVERYTHING WE SET OUT TO DO, BUT WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THE BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS, WHAT I'M SAYING. AND WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM PUBLIC COMMENT AND YOU MISSED THAT PIECE OF IT, IS THAT MY CONCERN WAS, AND NOW IN GONZALEZ GETS TO HEAR MY CONCERN IS THAT IS ISN'T ABOUT CHANGING IT BACK TO INCLUDE SOMEBODY, IT WAS THE TRANSPARENCY THAT IT WAS ASKED TO BE REMOVED TO EXCLUDE SOMEBODY. IT IS THE DIRECT OPPOSITE. AND THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT, YOU JUST SAID IT, I ACKNOWLEDGED IT. BUT THERE'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ARTICULATED BY A COMMISSIONER. BECAUSE WE HAVE IN MY OPINION CERTAIN DUTIES AND OATHS. I ALSO AGREE THAT CANDIDATES SHOULD STUDY THE MAPS, EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS ACCURATE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. ONLY THEY KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE. BUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SET OF FACTS THAT YOU HAVE IS THAT IF IT COMES, THIS COURT, BEFORE IT HAS GOES TO RETIRE, SHOULD AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE IF SOMEBODY ASKED FOR IT TO BE DONE, THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW THAT BECAUSE THAT WEIGHS INTO THE CONFIDENCE AND INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS, WHAT YOU DID, ALL THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, EXPRESSED, ABSOLUTELY, 100% CONCUR, I CONCUR NOTHING ILLEGAL HAPPENED, I CONCUR IT WAS A GREAT PROCESS. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, ALONG WITH EVERYBODY ELSE, THAT NOT SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO RUN, SOMEBODY WHO HAS DECLARED THAT THEY ARE RUNNING, THAT THIS COURT DID NOT, WITH KNOWLEDGE, INTENTIONALLY TRY TO QUITE, FRANKLY, STOP THE VOTERS FROM MAKING THE DECISION. THAT IS WHAT WE CALL A IT FAIR PROCESS, THAT WAS MY CONCERN. I WANT TO HAVE IT OUT FOR OPEN DEBATE, OTHERWISE PEOPLE MIGHT LEAVE HERE THINKING THAT I WAS COMPLICIT IN THAT AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT ON MY RECORD, IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO HAVE IT ON THEIR RECORD, THEY GET TO SAY, I'M OKAY WITH IT. MY PURPOSE, MR. DOWLING IS TO SAY I'M NOT OKAY WITH THAT BECAUSE I DON'T ADHERE TO THOSE TYPES OF CONCERNS. NOW, IN FAIRNESS, AND WE'LL GET TO HEAR FROM MR. GARZA, I CALLED HIM, I WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT IT UP HAD I NOT BEEN 100% CONVINCE, I WOULD NOT HAVE MADE PUBLIC COMMENT IF I WERE NOT 100% CONVINCED THAT A COMMISSIONER ASKED FOR THAT AT ONE TIME. IF THE MAPS WERE ALL TRANSPARENT, THEY ARE, IT'S JUST A CHOICE, THAT'S ALL IT IS, IT'S JUST A CHOICE, BUT THE IDEA THAT IT WAS ASKED FOR INTENTIONALLY.NOT THAT THE MAP MAKER CAME UP WITH IT, BUT THAT A COMMISSIONER ASKED THE MAP MAKER AT ANY POINT IN THE PROCESS. AT ANY POINT IN THE PROCESS, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED. THAT IS WHAT I OBJECT TO. I DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT, NOBODY SAID IT'S ILLEGAL NOT TO DISCLOSE IT, BUT IF WE WANT TO CELEBRATE A PROCESS, THEN LET'S JUST ALL ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT IT IS. AND THAT WAS THE CONCERN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN PUBLIC COMMENT AND MY PHONE ALL DAY YESTERDAY. AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYONE THINKING OUT THERE THAT I WAS A PART OF THAT BECAUSE I WAS NOT AND IT DOESN'T JADE ME ON THE GOOD WORK OF THE ONE MAN ONE VOTE OR THE MINORITY POPULATION, OR ANY OF THAT GREAT WORK THAT WE DID, BUT IT DOES JADE ME ON THE PROCESS THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE AT WORK AND THAT'S ALL.
>> DID YOU WANT TO ASK MR. GARZA BECAUSE HE SAID
REPEATEDLY. >> MR. GARZA, DO YOU WANT TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE YOU AND I HAD A CONVERSATION AND I WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT IT UP IF I HAD NOT BEEN THOROUGHLY CONVINCED AT SOME POINT IN THE PROCESS, I ASKED YOU, DID ANY COMMISSIONER ASK YOU AT ANY POINT TO MAKE PRECINCT 3 IN PRECINCT 4?
>> SO, LET ME CLARIFY, THE PROCESS, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A TRUNKATED PROCESS IN TERMS OF THE TIME FRAME THAT WE HAD TO DEAL WITH, IT HAS BEEN ON THE OTHER HAND A LONG PROCESS IN THAT WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK ON THESE MAPS. AND WE'VE DONE AS MANY AS SIX MAPS. AND SO, THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS EARLY IN THE
[01:25:03]
PROCESS I WAS, SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT THE PLAN THAT YOU ADOPTED, PLAN BB MODIFIED WITH BISHOP AND DRISCOLL AND THE OTHER MODIFICATIONS, AND IT IS ACCURATE WHEN I SAID NO ONE TOLD ME TO MOVE ANY PRECINCTS IN OR OUT EXCEPT THOSE DISCUSSED IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. EARLY IN THE PROCESS, I WAS TOLD THAT COMMISSIONER CHESNEY HAD AGREED TO TAKE VOTING PRECINCT 3. WHEN I APPROACHED COMMISSIONER CHESNEY THAT, HE SAID HE HAD NOT IF ANYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT, THEY MISS UNDERSTOOD HIM. AND HE ASKED ME AS HE SAID IN THE E-MAIL HE SENT TO ME THAT I GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ AND TELL HIM HIS POSITION WAS THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO ACCEPT ANY PRECINCTS UNLESS HE ABSOLUTELY HAD TO. AND HIS PREFERENCE WAS TO ACCEPT NONE AND GIVE UP AS LITTLE OF HIS PRECINCT AS POSSIBLE. ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID ARE CORRECT. BUT I, AT THE EARLY STAGES OF IT, AND I INPUT NO MOTIVE BEHIND THE SUGGESTION MADE TO ME, BUT I WAS TOLD THAT COMMISSIONER CHESNEY AGREED TO TAKE VOTING PRECINCT 3. AND THAT'S, SORT OF THE TRUNKATED EXPLANATION OF THE OCCURRENCE. AND IF I'VE CAUSED ANY CONFUSION BY THE MANNER IN WHICH I DISCUSSED THESE THINGS, I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT AND PUBLIC. BUT PLAN BBB IS JUST ASTIM DOWLING EXPLAINED Z AND >> AND THAT IS WHY AFTER LEARNING THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO TAKE THE COMMENTS THAT I MADE. AND I DO BELIEVE, AND I WANT TO BE SURE COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ HEARS ME, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO AT LEAST CONSIDER RETRACTING 3. BECAUSE IT DENIES THE VOTERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SELECT WHO THEY WANT TO REPRESENT PRECINCT 2. AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT, THERE'S NOTHING THAT I CAN DO ABOUT IT, EXCEPT FOR JUST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF IT. AND I WOULD DO
THAT FOR ANY OF YOU. >> SO, I THINK WE NEED TO PAUSE, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD WHAT I CONSIDER A PRETTY DOWLING SAYIN TO DO THAT WOULD BE GERRYMANDERING.
>> I DON'T THINK HE HAD THE FACTS AS WE JUST HEARD THEM. I
WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIS OPINION. >> SO WHAT WAS GERRYMANDERED WAS WHAT WAS DONE. LET'S BE VERY CLEAR. I MEAN.
>> WHAT WAS DONE WAS A GERRYMANDERED.
>> WELL, JUDGE, THAT MEANS YOU GERRYMANDERED, BECAUSE YOU VOTED
FOR IT. >> WE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT.
>> I AGREE. IF IF IN FACT, YOU DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT YOU GERRYMANDERED BECAUSE YOU VOTED FOR THAT BECAUSE WE DID NOT GERRYMANDER BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE -- LET'S BE CLEAR.
>> YOU CAN'T GERRYMANDER A PRECINCT THAT ALREADY EXISTING INSIDE OF A PRECINCT. JERRY MANDATE IRING IS WHEN YOU TAKE A PRECINCT OUT OF A PRECINCT AND YOU PUT IT IN FOR A FAVORABLE POSITION. SO, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT 3 ALWAYS, IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING, RIGHT BECAUSE IT'S A VOTING PRECINCT 3 ALWAYS EXISTING IN 2. PRECINCT 2, ALL RIGHT. LET'S SAY IT THAT WAY.
COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ' PRECINCT. 3 WAS ALWAYS THERE. ALL I'M SAYING IS, LEAVE IT THERE. BECAUSE, WHAT WE DID WAS GERRYMANDER, AND I'M TRYING TO CORRECT THAT. BECAUSE, YOU WANTED TO KEEP YOUR PRECINCT AS MUCH AS IN TACT AS POSSIBLY, YOU ARGUED VEHEMENTLY FOR IT. WE SLICED ONLY 125 AND KEPT 120 TOGETHER, AND WE GOT AS MANY PEOPLE IN THERE TO HELP YOU KEEP AS MANY PEOPLE. YOU ACCEPTING NEW PEOPLE.
>> WELCOMED. >> NOT BECAUSE YOU WANTED IT BUT BECAUSE THAT WAS THE WILL OF THE COURT. LOOK. I'M NOT HERE TO CHANGE ANYTHING, I'M HERE TO CREATE AWARENESS, BECAUSE I
[01:30:03]
DIDN'T KNOW. AND I BET THAT IT WOULD HAVE MAY BE MADE A DIFFERENCE IF SOME OF US HAD KNOWN. I'M ONLY ALLOWED TO TALK TO ONE COMMISSIONER AND IN THE RECESS, I SPOKE TO COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ AND HE TOLD ME I DIDN'T KNOW. YOU'RE WELCOMED TO SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, BUT I WANT TO BE SURE PEOPLE KNOW WHO KNEW AND WHO DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO BE THE EFFECT OF THE MAP. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR, THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE FIGHT IN LAWSUITS FOR. THE EFFECT, THE CONSEQUENCES, HOW DOES IT EFFECTYOU PERMANENTLY. >> AND SO, WHEN WE HAD THE CONVERSATION WHEN MR. GARZA AND I HAD THE CONVERSATION AND ASKING TO DO THAT, AND I SAID, AND I DID NOT KNOW WHO LIVED IN THAT PRECINCT. AND HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT I REFUSED THAT
>> SO, CLEAN HANDS HERE, RIGHT, I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. MY CONCERN IS, NOW WHAT WE'RE DOING, BECAUSE WE'VE DONE THIS, THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE HAPPENED. AND NOW, AND I'M POSING THIS TO TIM TOO, NOW IF WE CHANGE WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE AND SIGNED AS AN ORDER, ARE WE NOT REVERSE GERRYMANDERING, AND REALLY PUTTING OURSELVES, I'M JUST SAYING, BECAUSE WE'RE REALLY NOW SAYING EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS PUBLICLY DONE AND PRECINCT 3 WAS IN FIVE MAPS AND I CREAMED AND YELLED ABOUT NOT TAKE THANKSGIVING PRECINCT, THE WHOLE PROCESS WAS OUT THERE.
>> DID YOU EVER TALK TO CONDOS ABOUT THAT?
>> NO, DID I NOT, I TALKED TO MAREZ ABOUT THAT.
>> DID YOU THINK YOU WOULD BE OKAY WITH IT, WHEN HE TOLD
MR. GARZA YOU AGREED TO IT. >> I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF ANY CONVERSATION AND THAT'S WHAT I TOLD HIM THEN AND I HAVE NO
DESIRE TO KEEP THAT. >> AND THAT'S WHAT THE E-MAIL
REFLECTS. >> AND THAT'S WHAT THE E-MAIL REFLECTS. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RECOLLECTION OF THIS OR ABSOLUTELY NO CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ DURING THIS PROCESS. AS SOON AS I I HAVE NO AGREEMENT WITH THAT CONVERSATION AND I DO NOT WANT, I'M HAPPY TO GET IT IF I GET IT, BUT I WANTED TO KEEP WHAT WAS IN MY PRECINCT, SO THAT'S VERY CLEAR, SO, TO ME THIS FEELS LIKE GOING BACK AND NOW GERRYMANDERING, TO ME, THE OPTION WOULD NOT BE JUST TO AMEND YOU WOULD HAVE TO START ALL OVER AGAIN.
>> NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO START ALL OVER AGAIN.
>> BUT DURING THE PROCESS. >> RIGHT, AND I ASKED THAT QUESTION OF OUR COUNSEL, HE HAD WE COULD AMEND Z I'M NOT ADVOCATED AMENDMENT FULLY UNTIL WE DISCUSS WITH OUR ATTORNEYS.
WHAT I'M SAYING IF YOU DON'T THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE
PEOPLE TO KNOW. >> LET THE PEOPLE KNOW.
>> DON'T YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT SOMETHING, HERE THEY FINALLY
COME. >> IF COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ
WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING, HE CAN. >> GO AHEAD.
>> COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ? >> YES.
>> GO AHEAD. >> I'M GOING TO PUT A MIC ON.
ACTUALLY, HOLD ON ONE SECURE. >> GO AHEAD, CONFULLY.
>> WE'RE TESTING A MIC. >> WE GOT YOU NOW.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHATEVER HAPPENED WITH COMMISSIONER RE GARZA AND I. I DON'T KNOW WHY MY OPPONENTS RESIDE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE VOTES. NOW THAT I DO KNOW, BECAUSE IT WAS AN ISSUE, AT THAT TIME I TOLD MR. GARZA THAT, I THINK, I HAD TWO PRECINCTS IN THE AREA. MAY BE HE COULD LACK AT MY AREA TO SEE WHAT WE COULD MOVE OUT SO WE COULD MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE DEMON DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A LITTLE MORE MINORITY, AND MAKE IT STRONGER FOR THE TWO JUSTICES. ONE WAS IN CHESNEY'S AREA, I THINK BOTH WERE IN CHESNEY'S AREA, BECAUSE I BORDER CHESNEY ALL THE WAY AROUND. BUT, YOU KNOW, OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T KNOW, AND MR. GARZA TOLD ME THAT CHESNEY DIDN'T WANT ANY PRECINCTS, HE DREW MAP BECAUSE CHESNEY DIDN'T WANT ANYTHING ELSE REMOVED FROM HIS PRECINCT. OTHER THAN THAT, IT HAPPENED, THE WAY IT HAPPENED, YOU KNOW, YOU SEEM TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, JUDGE, YOU ALWAYS THINK THAT WE DO THINGS FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, AND IT'S ALWAYS HOWEVER YOU SAY THINGS
[01:35:04]
THE RIGHT WAY, AND I THINK YOU'RE WRONG ON THIS ONE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER YOU FEEL, I MEAN, AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THE PROCESS THAT WE HAD WAS A GOOD PROCESS, WE HAD PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE THAT WE HIRED TO DO THE JOB, OPEN COURT, PEOPLE HAD A CHANCE TO DIGEST AND COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT IT. AND I NEVER SAW MY OPPONENT THERE. I NEVER SAW ANYBODY THERE TO QUESTION.AND THE MAPS ARE THERE, AND THE MAPS HAVE THE NUMBERS, SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, NOBODY SEEMED TO CATCH ANYTHING, OR WHATEVER, SO, I MEAN, TO GO BACK YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, SETTING A PRECEDENT TO ME, NOW IF ANYTHING GOES WRONG OR SOMEBODY DOESN'T LIKE SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND CHANGE IT. SO, IT'S JUST LIKE THE ONES FROM MAREZ GOING BACK AND CHANGED MAREZ BACK AGAIN, AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HE NEEDED SO WE CHANGED IT. AND IT WAS ALL DONE IN OPEN COURT AND EVERYBODY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN OPEN COURT, OTHER THAN WE VOTED 5-0, YOU VOTED FOR IT, WHETHER YOU KNEW ABOUT IT OR NOT, WHETHER YOU PAID ATTENTION OR NOT, IT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO RUN FOR OFFICE, THEY NEED TO GET INVOLVED. THEY NEED TO GET INVOLVED ON WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE PROCESS, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO RUN AND BE CONSIDERED, I THINK YOU NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN THE WHOLE PROCESS, AS FAR AS ME KNOWING THAT THAT WAS HIS PRECINCT TO BEGIN WITH, I DID NOT KNOW THAT. I THOUGHT HE WAS IN 116. OTHER THAN THAT THAT, JUDGE, AT THIS POINT, FROM WHAT I HEARD, I DON'T THINK WE DID ANYTHING WRONG. EVERYTHING WAS ETHICAL, EVERYTHING WAS LEGAL. AND I WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. I'M REALLY DISAPPOINTED THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THERE THAT SPOKE THIS MORNING, AND I GOT PHONE CALLS TOO, YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT GOT PHONE CALLS, I GOT PHONE CALLS FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE AND SOME PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE SPEAKING, REALLY SURPRISES ME BECAUSE WHEN THEY NEEDED HELP, THEY WERE KNOCKING ON MY DOOR. AND THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, AND SO, IT'S JUST ABOUT, IF YOU KNOW MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE, IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT ANIMAL, YOU GOT TO BE ON TOP OF THINGS IF WE WANT TO RUN FOR SOMETHING.
I THINK THE VOTE'S THERE, I DON'T WANT TO BE BACKWARDS, I DON'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT, I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.
>> SO, IF I ASKED MR. GARZA IF YOU DISCUSSED WITH HIM, WETHER OR NOT IT WAS LEGAL TO CARVE OUT A POLITICAL OPPONENT, WHAT WOULD
YOU SAY HE WOULD SAY? >> I'M SORRY,
>> DID YOU ASK MR. GARZA WETHER OR NOT IT WAS LEGAL TO CARVE OUT
A POLITICAL OPPONENT? >> WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM.
>> I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU... >> NAH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASK ME, ASK HIM. YOU SEEM TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.
>> WELL, I JUST THINK THAT I'M, I'LL DEFER TO HIM.
>> WELL, JUDGE, IF YOU WANT TO ASK MR. GONZALEZ.
>> MR. GARZA SAID THAT YOU SAID THAT MR. CHESNEY HAD AGREED AND CHESNEY SAID HE HADN'T AGREED, HOW WOULD HE GET THAT IDEA?
>> JUDGE, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW.
>> ASK MR. GARZA, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHEN HE GETS AN
IDEA. >> REDISTRICTING, A PRECINCT, SOMETIMES YOU CUT SOMEONE'S LINE, LAST TIME I WAS THREE PRECINCTS DOWN SO HOPEFULLY I WOULD BE VOTED OUT AND I WASN'T.
EVERYTHING CHANGES FOR A REASON AND THERE'S A CAUSE. SO, I REALLY DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THIS ANY FURTHER, THERE'S ALREADY A VOTE BEEN TAKEN, 5-0, YOU KNOW. AND I THINK WE SHOULD
MOVE ON. >> YEAH, WELL, I JUST WANT TO ANSWER THE REASON I'M CONCERNED IS BECAUSE I PROMISED THE PEOPLE TO BE FAIR AND OPEN AND TRANSPARENT.
>> AND I PROMISED THE PEOPLE THAT I WOULD BE FAIR AND
REPRESENT THEM. >> RIGHT. SO WHAT YOU MISSED EARLIER IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO CALLED MY OFFICE AND THE PEOPLE WHO CAME HERE TODAY, FEEL THAT BECAUSE THE WAY YOU RELAYED THAT
[01:40:08]
INITIAL CONVERSATION TO TO JOSE GARZA AND THE FACT THAT HE WAS A POLITICAL OPPONENT, THEY FEEL LIKE THIS COURT ENDORSED VOTING, EXCUSE ME, THAT THIS COURT ENDORSED IN VOTING FOR THE MAP XING OUT YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT. IT WAS THE TRANSPARENCY, WE WANTED TO HEAR FROM YOU, THAT THAT WAS NOT WHAT YOU WERE DOING, THAT WAS THE QUESTION. WERE YOU TRYING TO THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT.>> WE CAN BE HERE ALL DAY LONG WITH YOU, AND I THINK I'VE ALREADY SAID WHAT I'M GOING IT SAY, I THINK WE NEED TOP MOVE FORWARD. I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE MY VOTE. IT'S A 5-0, YOU VOTED FOR IT, WE HAD A PROFESSION DO IT, THE PEOPLE THERE SUPPORTED IT, THERE WAS A STANDING OVATION, PEOPLE THERE TODAY, DIDN'T GO TO ANY OF THE MEETINGSES, WEREN'T THERE AND KNEW HE WAS MY OPPONENT, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I'M OFF TODAY, I GOT TO GO. SO, I GOT TO GO, AND THAT'S IT. SO, I'M JUST TELLING YOU HOW I FEEL. THAT'S IT.
>> WE APPRECIATE THAT. >> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. >> SO, ALISA GONZALEZ, YOU HAVE
>> JUDGE CANALES, AND EVERYBODY WHO IS PRESENT I REALLY FEEL THAT THIS PROCESS THAT YOU ARE GOING THROUGH IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN TOO MUCH GLOSSING OVER OF THE EFFECTS OF PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING AND EVEN IF EVERYTHING VOTED FOR THE MAP WITHOUT SEEING THAT IMPLICATION OF THAT PARTICULAR DISTRICT THREE, EVEN IF THAT WAS DONE BY MISTAKE, IT'S REALLY, REALLY, IMPORTANT WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE T IT'S REALLY SETTING PRECEDENTS, AND IT'S GIVING A LOT OF HOPE TO A LOT OF THOSE OF US WHO ARE PUT OFF WITH HOW THE WHOLE PROCESS IS SO NOT TRANSPARENT. AND THIS IS REALLY AN IMPORTANT THING TO BE ADDRESSING. SO, I JUST WANT TO COMMEND YOU FOR PUSHING ON THAT PLANK OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I THINK IT'S COMPLETELY ADMIRABLE. THANK YOU.
>>> THANK YOU. >>> YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS AS THEY SAY, SOMETIMES, I GUESS, IT'S 2021, I GUESS WE'LL LIVE IN UNPRECEDENTED TERMS, THE WAY 2020 WAS UNPRECEDENTED FOR HEALTH, YOU KNOW, I WISH I DID HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. HE SAID I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, I DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, BUT I DO KNOW TO SHINE A PUBLIC LIGHT ON IT, AND YOU ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO SPEAK WHICH WE DID HERE, AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MAREZ, I WISH THAT THERE WAS A WAY THAT WE COULD BROADCAST IT SO THAT MORE PEOPLE COULD GIVE INPUT BUT I'M LUCKY THAT THE PEOPLE HERE GIVING THE BIG INPUT HAVE JOINED US ONLINE.
AND I'M LUCKY THAT ALL THE COMMISSIONERS FOUND A WAY TO PARTICIPATE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, SO THAT NONE OF US CAN SAY THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A PART IN THE PROCESS. BUT, AGAIN, IT'S A LITTLE HEART SICKNESS FOR ME THAT I THOUGHT WE HAD DONE SOMETHING SO WELL, ONLY TO REVEAL THAT THE EFFECT OF OUR MAP DOESN'T IT'S NOT ABOUT FAVORING A PERSON, GUYS, IT'S ABOUT DEMOCRACY. IT'S ABOUT VOTING. IT'S BEEN LETTING PEOPLE DECIDE. NOT YOU KNOW MAP MAKERS. BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING TOLD TO DO SOMETHING THAT THEY THINK IS INNOCENT. IT'S ABOUT THAT, AND IT'S ABOUT FINDING TRUTH. AND, I WANT TO THANK EVERYTHING FOR COMING HERE TODAY. I WAS ASKED BY MR. DOWLING IN THE CHAT WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO THE DEVIATION, MR. DOWLING, WHAT YOU DIDN'T GET TO HEAR EARLIER IS THAT WHEN JOSE GARZA WAS ON, I WANTED TO AT LEAST HAVE THE COURT GO ON RECORD BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN MAKE ELECTEDS
[01:45:01]
ACCOUNTABLE, YOU HAVE TO SAY YES OR NO IN LIFE. YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE RIGHT FOR YOU, FOR WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT. AND, SO WHAT I HAD SUGGESTED WAS ASKING THE QUESTION, OF MR. GARZA IF YOU PUT THREE BACK WHERE IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING, REMEMBER, EVERYBODY HERE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE VOTED FOR MINIMAL CHANGE, REMEMBER THAT GUYS MINIMAL CHANGE. WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING WAS THAT IF THREE GOES BACK TO WHERE IT WAS AND MORE OF 125 WHICH WAS ALREADY IN PRECINCT 4, MINIMAL CHANGE, WOULD THAT HURT OUR DEVIATION, OUR ETHNIC MINORITY POPULATION, MR. GARZA SAID NO. SO, AGAIN, I'M NOT EXPECTING TO CHANGE ANYTHING HERE, I AM EXPECTING TO SHINE A LIGHT ON IT. AND, SHINING THE LIGHT ALLOWS ALL OF US TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN ACTIONS.AND AGAIN, ON WEDNESDAY, YES, WHEN ALL THE FACTS WERE NOT REVEALED, BUT ONCE I, IF I HAD MADE THE CALL TO MR. GARZA, I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, AND THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION OF WHO ASKED YOU TO THEY THINK THESE MAPS AT ANY TIME, AND WAS THERE A DISCUSSION OF CAN YOU X OUT A POLITICAL OPPONENT, IF THOSE HAD BEEN NOBODY ASKED ME, AND NOBODY ASKED ME, I WOULD HAVE SAID, WE'RE OKAY. SOMEBODY DROPPED THE BALL, PERHAPS ON THAT ON THEIR SIDE, IF HE'S MAD ABOUT IT, BUT WE DID THE RIGHT THING.
ALL OF THE FACTS WERE ON THE TABLE. BUT THOSE WERE NOT THE ANSWERS TO MY QUESTION, AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THIS FORUM OWES IT TO OURSELVES AND THE PEOPLE TO SAY DO YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL OR WRONG, I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, BUT YOU HAVE TO ANSWER ONCE YOU KNOW THE EFFECTS OF THE CONSEQUENCES.
BUT, LET'S BE CLEAR, YOU KNOW, I WISH I HAD THE RIGHT ANSWER, BUT I CAN ONLY MAKE A MOTION. THAT'S ALL, THAT'S THE POWER THAT I HAVE AS WELL AS THE POWER OF EVERYBODY ELSE. AND SO, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION BASED ON MR. -- MS. GONZALEZ, ALISSA
GONZALEZ. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT'S WHY IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE BUILT INTO THE SYSTEM A WAY OF THINGSING THINGS, IF WE FIND THAT THERE'S
A PROBLEM WITH THE MAP. >> AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, IN OTHER ELECTIONS, THERE ARE WAIVERS FOR RESIDENCY, THERE ARE WAYS TO CURE IT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE. SO, THAT IS HOW, BUT IF SOMEBODY COMES TO ME AND SAYS YOU DENY ME MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND YOU DID SO AND I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT, THEN I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT, BUT IF I KNOW ABOUT IT AND I DIDN'T BRING IT UP, I'M COMPLICIT THERE. SO, AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS, I'M SORRY IT PROVIDES ANGST, BUT, THERE'S A MOTION, I HAVE A MOTION TO AT LEAST I THINK THE PROPER WAY TO SAY IT IS TO AMEND THE MAP WE ADOPTED WHICH IS BBB MODIFIED. ONLY TO RESTORE THE ORIGINAL PRECINCT 3 AND RESTORE MORE FOLKS TO PRECINCT 125, WHICH IT DOESN'T CHANGE EITHER. AND FOR THOSE OF YOU ONLINE, AND WE'RE HERE IN PUBLIC THAT ADOPTED A, I CAN NOT IMAGINE WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS OTHER THAN, BECAUSE THAT REQUIRES, THAT IS GOING BACK TO THAT MINIMAL CHANGE, BUT WE'RE DOING SO BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE -- BECAUSE THE EFFECT TO DO NOTHING AND TO KEEP IT THE SAME IS TO REWARD THE XING OF POLITICAL OPPONENTS, AND THAT'S WRONG. NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE, IF YOU HAD OR I HAD IT, ISN'T THAT THE ESSENCE OF FIGHTING FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU BELIEVE IN, THAT YOU HAVE TO ENDURE HATE SPEECH TO DEFEND THE FLAG, I MEAN, THAT'S HOW I WAS RAISED. AT ANY RATE, THAT IS A MOTION AND THE WAY IT WORKS IN COMMISSIONER'S COURT IS YOU NEED A SECOND TO MOVE ON. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION AND I WOULD SAY, SUBJECT TO AND CONTINGENT UPON MR. GARZA GIVING YOU ALL THE INFORMATION. YOU SHOULD NEVER VOTE ON ANYTHING THAT WOULD NOT HAVE MR. GARZA'S NUMBERS AND ALL THINGS
[01:50:03]
ASSOCIATED WITH, JUST LIKE WE DID WHEN MR. GONZALEZ SAID, HEY, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT BISHOP WOULD BE CUT UP, REMEMBER WHEN HE SAID THAT, MY BAD, I DIDN'T KNOW IT, I WANT TO FIX IT. SAME THING, WE ASKED FOR IN GARZA TO HELP TO CREATE THE MAPS AGAIN AND THE NUMBERS, BEFORE WE VOTED ON IT, THE SAME WITH MR. CHESNEY'S 125, MY MOTION IS MADE UPON THE CONTINGENCY OF ALL OF US BEING PROVIDE THAT HAD INFORMATION, BUT WE DON'T DO SO BECAUSE WE DID ANYTHING WRONG IN THE LEGAL PROCESS, WE DON'T DO SO IN THIS MOTION BECAUSE WE DID ANYTHING WRONG IN THE APPARENT PROCESS, BUT WE DO SO BECAUSE WE DO NOT NEED TO SUBSCRIBE TO A NON-TRANSPARENT PROCESS. AND I WOULD ASK FOR A SECOND.>> FROM THE AUDIENCE OR? >> NO, I WISH.
>> NO. SO, HEARING NO SECOND. >> I'M SORRY, I WAS ON MUTE.
I'M SORRY, I MAKE THE SECOND FOR THAT.
>> I WOULD LIKE MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.
>> THANK YOU, I HAVE A SECOND. >> SO THAT ALLOWS US TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION. AND I REALLY DO WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU
COMMISSIONERS. >> JUDGE, I WANT TO REMEND YOU COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ CANNOT VOTE ON THIS TODAY, HE'S NOT HERE AND HAS NO VIDEO, HE CAN'T EVEN VOTE ON THIS PROCESS, THAT'S NUMBER ONE, AND NUMBER TWO.
>> CAN I FINISH FIRST, I KNOW YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS. I MADE A SECOND AND I WANTED TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS.
>> SORRY, GO AHEAD. >> I MEAN, I HEAR EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING SAID, AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS A LOT TO TAKE ON. I'M NOT SAYING THAT NECESSARILY I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION T I WANT SOME MORE DISCUSSION, RIGHT. I KNOW WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS, AND I'M WITH YOU, JUDGE, AND WITH EVERYONE WHO THOUGHT WEDNESDAY THAT WAS IT. BUT, FOR WHAT'S BEING ASKED TODAY, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. GARZA, I MEAN, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? I MEAN, WHAT WILL THIS REQUEST INCLUDE? I MEAN HOW DOES THAT CHANGE THE NUMBERS? BECAUSE I KNOW WE SPENT A GOOD AMOUNT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT SWAPPING OUT AND MOVING PRECINCTS FROM HERE TO THERE AND HOW DOES THE BIGGER PICTURE LOOK ON HOW IT IMPACTS THE WHOLE AREA. SO, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE NOT WITH US IN COURT TODAY BUT YOU STILL HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE NUMBERS, I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING, THAT THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ALSO IF YOU HAD THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE BECAUSE TO ME THAT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF MOVING PARTS IF THIS WERE
TO PASS. >> SO, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION, COMMISSIONER, AND I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THIS POSSIBLE CHANGE IN ANY DETAIL, I DID DISCUSS WITH THE COURT EARLIER THAT I BELIEVE THAT IT'S POSSIBLE TO MOVE VOTING PRECINCT 3 INTO COMMISSIONER PRECINCT 2. AND MOVE AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF POPULATION FROM PRECINCT 125 WHICH IS SPLIT, TO MOVE SOME OF THAT POPULATION TO OFFSET THE MOVING OF THREE INTO PRECINCT TWO SO THAT THE POPULATION NUMBERS REMAIN WHERE WE HAVE THEM NOW WITH THIS EXCELLENT LEVEL OF DEVIATION. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE, WE HAVEN'T TRIED DOING THAT, AND I JUST TEXTED WITH MY OFFICE, BECAUSE I'M NOT IN THE OFFICE WHERE THE REDISTRICTING WORK HAPPENS, BUT, I TEXTED WITH HIM JUST TWO MINUTES AGO AND THE RESPONSE I GOT WAS THAT THEY ARE ON A ZOOM CALL WITH HIDALGO COUNTY WHICH HAD AN EMERGENCY COME UP WITH THEIR REDISTRICTING PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THAT. I COULD DO SOME OF THAT WORK MANUALLY HERE IN MY HOME OFFICE AND GIVE YOU A ROUGH ESTIMATE LIKE I DID WEDNESDAY BEFORE WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE REDISTRICTING OFFICE ONLINE. BUT, MY GUESS IS THAT, YES,
[01:55:04]
THOSE THINGS CAN BE DONE IN TERMS OF BALANCING THE POPULATION AND MAINTAINING A FAIRLY SIMILAR MINORITY CONCENTRATION BETWEEN THE DISTRICTS. VOTING PRECINCT 3 IN TERMS OF RACIAL COMPOSITION IS PROBABLY PRETTY CLOSE TO THE SAME COMPOSITION AS SOME OF THAT POPULATION IN 125. SO IT WOULD BE MY GUESS IS A FAIRLY EVEN TRADEOFF.>> OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER MAREZ OR?
>> NO, I DON'T, JUDGE, I VOTED. >> I'M SORRY, I SAID COMMISSIONER MAREZ, I MEN JOSE GARZA.
>> NO, JUDGE, THE REASON I VOTED THE WAY I DID BECAUSE WE ALL DID WAS BECAUSE WE WENT BY MR. GARZA'S JUDGMENT WHAT HE TOLD US, I HAD NO REASON TO DISPROVE AND I WENT BY HIS GUIDANCE AND I APPROVED OF. SO, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, I THINK WE CUT YOU OFF, NOT
INTENTIONALLY. >> JUDGE, I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THIS WHOLE PROCESS, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ ISN'T HERE, HE CAN'T VOTE, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE GERRYMANDERING CONVERSATION WITH MR. DOWLING, I THINK TO AMEND NOW IT'S OBVIOUS TO AMENDING TO PUT SOMEBODY BACK IN THE PLACE WHO WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE LEFT OUT OF A RACE. I THINK THAT'S GERRYMANDERING AT IT'S FINEST, SO TO JUST SIMPLY AMEND IS NOT
SOMETHING I CAN SUPPORT. >> WERE YOU SUPPORTIVE OF GETTING ALL OF 125 BACK ON WEDNESDAY OR WAS THAT MY
IMAGINATION? >> JUDGE, THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
I'M NOT COMFORTABLE. >> BUT DIDN'T YOU WANT TO KEEP
YOUR PRECINCT IN TACT? >> OF COURSE, I DO. BUT NOW IT SEEMS TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO GERRYMANDER TO PUT THIS BACK WHERE LARRY CAN RUN AGAINST JOE GONZALEZ AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING DO WITH THE WAY WE GOT HERE, THAT WAS MADE CLEARLY ON THE RECORD.
>> THEY USED YOU IN IT. >> LARRY AND JOE ARE FRIENDS I'M SICK THAT WE'RE NOT MIDDLE OF THIS THING, I'VE TALKED TO LARRY ABOUT THIS, I'M NOT GETTING IN BETWEEN THIS, AND THAT IS WHAT THIS IS, THIS COURT IS BEING ASKED NOW TO MAKE A DECISION TO HELP LARRY TO GET BACK INTO THE RACE AND I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT LARRY WOULD WANT TO DO IN THE SENSE OF ASKING THE WHOLE COURT TO BE PUT IN A THAT POSITION, I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR, AND I THINK IT'S GERRYMANDERING IF WE CHANGE THIS. BECAUSE THIS COURT DID NOT INTENTIONALLY TAKE THIS PRECINCT OUT AND GIVE IT TO ME.
MAY BE THERE WAS A CONVERSATION BETWEEN ONE COMMISSIONER AND THE
REDISTRICTING ATTORNEY, MAY BE? >> MAY BE? I THINK IT'S BEEN
CONFIRMED. >> COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ DID NOT SAY, THE SAME WAY. SO, MAY BE THERE WAS. SO, LET'S SAY
THERE WAS. >> I'M GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION, BUT I LET HIM GO ON THE RECORD.
>> CAN I PLEASE FINISH, ONCE. LET'S SAY FOR ARGUMENT THAT THAT HAPPENED, BUT THIS COURT AS A WHOLE DID NOT KNOW AND WE DID NOT INTENTIONALLY TAKE HIM OUT. THIS COURT DIDN'T DO IT, YOU DIDN'T DO IT, I DIDN'T DO IT AND HERNANDEZ DIDN'T DO IT AND EVEN IF GONZALEZ DID, HE'S ONE PERSON T NOW IF WE CHANGE IT BACK THEN THE ENTIRE COURT IS COMPLICIT IN GERRYMANDERING.
>> I THINK WE USE THESE BUZZ WORDS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW PEOPLE THINK YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING. THE ONLY GERRYMANDERING THAT HAPPENED WAS THIS WAY TO THAT WAY.
>> YOU VOTED FOR A GERRYMANDERED PLAN.
>> NO, I DIDN'T HAVE THAT THAT KNOWLEDGE. IF I KNEW A COMMISSIONER ASKED TO TO REMOVE AN OPPONENT IT'S BEEN DONE IN BEXAR COUNTY, OUT WARDLY, NOBODY'S SAYING IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. BUT THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG, AMISS, IN A FAIRIOUS ABOUT IT, AND WHAT I WAS WANTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WITH EVERYBODY IS TO GO INTO IT WITH EYES WIDE OPENING. THERE'S NOT
[02:00:04]
GERRYMANDERING, IF YOU'RE CORRECTING GERRYMANDERING.>> GERRYMANDERING IS AN INTENTIONAL ACT. THIS COURT DID NOT TAKE AN INTENTIONAL ACT, JUDGE, YOU'RE CONTINUING TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE WE PASSED A PLAN THAT WAS ILLEGAL, AND WE DIDN'T.
THIS COURT DID NOT GERRYMANDER. THIS WOULD BE GERRYMANDERING.
>> NO IT WOULDN'T. >> YES IT IS, GERRYMANDERING IS AN INTENTIONAL ACT. AND THIS COURT DID NOT TAKE AEN INTENTIONAL ACT Z SO, JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR,
>> IT'S GERRYMANDERING. >> IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT, SO THAT YOU'RE USING BUZZ WORDS SO THAT WIND UP ON THE NEWS Z IT'S
CALLED LEGAL WORDS. >> TIM HASN'T HEARD ALL OF THE COMMENTS, ANYWAY, I'LL RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER MAREZ AT THIS TIME.
>> THANK YOU, JUDGE. I JUST WANTED TO WEIGH IN, I KNOW EVERYBODY HAS (INDISCERNIBLE)
>> I WAS NOT AWARE OF WHERE MR. ALASONO RESIDES, I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE WAS A VOTING PRECINCT, THAT CONVERSATION NEVER CAME UP WITH ME ON THIS COURT ESPECIALLY WITH COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. I APPROVED THE VOTE WEDNESDAY THAT WE HAD A GREAT MAP PUT TOGETHER FROM WHAT I RECALL, I THOUGHT WE HAD MAP VERSIONS THAT INCLUDED PRECINCT 3 IN THE BOUNDARY AND I WENT WITH WHAT I HEARD THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SAY THAT NIGHT WHICH WAS BB, AND WE MADE SOME MINOR TWEAKS TO THAT. I MADE THEM IN MY PRECINCT BECAUSE I WAS LOSING OUT ON A PRECINCT, THE VOTING BOX THAT WAS IN PRECINCT 3 THAT HAD (INDISCERNIBLE) IN AN AREA IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE I WAS TRYING TO KEEP MY NEIGHBORHOOD SO, I LEFT IT AS IS, AND I ASKED TO KEEP THE MAP AS IT WAS WHICH WAS PRECINCT 1 (INDISCERNIBLE)
>> 105, WHICH IS (INDISCERNIBLE)
>> BUT, THOSE WERE TO ME, THE ONLY AREAS THAT I WAS FOCUSED ON. I DID NOT AND DON'T MAKE IT A HABIT WHO LIVES IN THOSE PRECINCTS OR NOT. MAY BE I HAVE AN OPPONENT PLANNING TO RUN AND I MOVED HIM BACK IN AND LATER HE WAS MOVED OUT, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHOSE RUNNING. SO, I HAVE THAT (INDISCERNIBLE) THAT WAS NEVER AN ISSUE FOR ME. NOT LIKE COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, I HAVE GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH LARRY AND JOE GONZALEZ, THEY'RE BOTH CONSIDERED FRIENDS AND I'VE SERVED WITH THEM FOR YEARS AND IT'S NOT ABOUT ONE CANDIDATE OR THE OTHER, I WISH, I HOPE, MY HOPE WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT IF THIS WAS AN ISSUE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT WHEN WE WERE VOTING, BEFORE WE HAD OUR DEADLINE IS OR I THOUGHT OUR DEADLINE WAS SET.
THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY VOTE. SOMETIMES IT TAKES AWHILE FOR PEOPLE TO REALIZE WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT THESE ARE PUBLIC MEETINGS, SO NOT KNOWING THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE THERE, MAY BE IT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, BUT I DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT UNTIL RECENTLY, LIKE I SAID, EARLIER, TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ONE
(INDISCERNIBLE) >> I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A PROCESS WE'VE WENT THROUGH IN AN UNBIASSED MANNER. AND THERE WAS NO, I WISH THERE WAS MORE INTEREST, BUT, ON WEDNESDAY, (INDISCERNIBLE) (INDISCERNIBLE)
>> AS A RESULT OF THIS. BUT, I TRUST THE MAPS CREATED BY MR. GARZA, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN HIM AND THE COMMISSIONER, I FEEL CONFIDENT AND COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE APPROVED. I FEEL LIKE IF WE CHANGED THAT, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AND CHANGE EVERYTHING, AND DO WE HAVE THE TIME TO DO THAT? AND IF NOT, I WISH I COULD BE THERE IN PERSON, I CAN'T MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE, BUT, (INDISCERNIBLE)
>> I CAN NOT HAVE SOMETHING. IF IT'S ILLEGAL, THEN NOTHING'S
[02:05:08]
GOING TO CHANGE, I THINK OUR VOTE WAS TAKEN, I DON'T KNOW IF WE LEGALLY HAVE TO VOTE TODAY OTHER THAN JUST TO(INDISCERNIBLE) >> BUT, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD TELL ME TO CHANGE OUR VOTE OR FOCUS TODAY.
NOW, IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO TAKE LEGAL RECOURSE, THEY NEED DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO, BUT I FEEL BASED ON WHAT I DID, IT WAS ALL ABOUT MY PRECINCT, WE KNEW NOTHING ELSE ABOUT ANYTHING OR ANYONE ELSE. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT POINT Z WOULD IT MATTER TO YOU, COMMISSIONER, IF YOU KNEW
>> WOULD IT MATTER TO YOU, COMMISSIONER, IF YOU KNEW THAT IT WAS INTENTIONAL OR NOT. IF YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY LIKE WE DO TODAY BECAUSE OF A LITTLE BIT OF LUCK THAT WE POSTED IT IN THE SAME EXACT VERBIAGE EXISTS TODAY AS WEDNESDAY. BECAUSE THAT'S MY DILEMMA IN MY HEART ON ETHICS, THAT WE HAPPENED HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, MOST PEOPLE DON'T GET THE CHANCE TO RIGHT THE WRONG BUT WE DO BECAUSE OF THE VE VERBIAGE THAT WE POSTED TO PROTECT THE COURT ON THE OTHER MATTER. AND MY QUESTION IS WAS THIS DONE INTENTIONALLY, AND I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, WAS I AGREE WITH YOU, YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT YOUR PRECINCT AND I WAS WORRIED ABOUT CONSTITUTIONALITY AND ETHNICITY, AND ALL THE RIGHT THINGS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO WORK ON. BUT, ONCE I KNEW AND LEARNED THAT IT WAS DONE WITH INTENTION, IT CHANGED FOR ME. IT'S NO LONGER MY ABILITY TO SAY, I DID RIGHT, I DID RIGHT ON WEDNESDAY. I DID RIGHT. ALL OF US, THE ONES THAT HAVE SPOKEN THAT SAID WE DIDN'T KNOW. BUT IF YOU KNOW NOW, THAT IT WAS INTENTIONAL, THAT CHANGES IT FOR ME, AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE CERTAIN OF. I HEAR YOU, OUR NAPS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD CELEBRATE, THAT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. BUT WHAT I DO NOT WANT THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY TO ACCEPT IS THAT ONE OF US HAD THE INTENTION OF DOING THAT WHICH MIGHT BE LEGAL BUT IS CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED BY GOOD OFFICERS OF THE COURT.
>> AND THAT'S WHY I SECONDED THIS MOTION SO WE COULD HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF I HEARD TODAY WAS ANY OF THIS INTENTIONAL OR ILLEGAL. IF SOMEONE CAN TELL ME THAT PART, IF SOMEONE CAN TELL ME THAT PART, THEN OBVIOUSLY, IT'S GOING TO TELL ME THAT WE MUST CHANGE. BUT IF IT WAS, YOU
KNOW. >> WELL, I HATE TO PUT HIM ON THE SPOT, BUT I WILL. BECAUSE, I TRIED MY HARDEST TO DO IT WITHOUT. BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT PUTS PEOPLE IN A TERRIBLE POSITION TO HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING THAT'S NOT FAVORABLE OR KIND OR YOU KNOW, BUT THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH. AND THE REASON I KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS BECAUSE I KNOW MR. GARZA TO BE A VERY HONORABLE AND A MAN OF HIGH INTEGRITY AND I ALREADY ASKED THE QUESTION. SO, LIKE ANY GOOD LAWYER I WOULD NEVER ASK THIS QUESTION UNLESS I KNEW THE ANSWER. AND THAT'S WHAT PAINS ME. AND IT MAKES ME WANT TO CRY. YOU THINK WHAT YOU COULD THROW OUT A WORD LIKE GERRYMANDERING, AND IT MAKES IT OKAY, THAT COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ ASKED MR. GARZA, WETHER OR NOT XING OUTAL POLITICAL OPPONENT WAS LEGAL OR NOT.
>> BUT, JUDGE, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ SAID THAT'S NOT THE
CASE. >> I KNOW, I'M ABOUT TO ASK MR. GARZA, BECAUSE I ALREADY ASKED MR. GARZA ABOUT THIS, HE
HAS TO TELL ME THE TRUTH. >> I THINK YOU ALREADY ASKED
MR. GARZA, AND HE SAID. >> NO, I HAVEN'T ASKED MR. GARZA RIGHT NOW. I'M GOING TO ASK HIM ON THE ZOOM.
>> IS HE THERE? LOOKS LIKE IT'S MR. RIOS.
>> MR. RIOS IS HERE. MR. GARZA, I'M GOING TO TRY AND MAKE THIS AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE FOR YOU, SO THAT YOU REPRESENT ALL INTERESTS OF THE COURT, BUT AT ANY TIME DID COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ ASK THE QUESTION AS TO WETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE LEGAL TO I WOULD SAY REDISTRICT OUT A POTENTIAL POLITICAL OPPONENT?
>> SO, MR. GONZALEZ AND I -- I MENTIONED TO MR. GONZALEZ THAT
[02:10:03]
THERE WAS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT XING OUT A POTENTIAL OPPONENT.WHETHER THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION FROM HIM OR WHETHER IT WAS IN A GENERAL DISCUSSION WITH HIM, I DO NOT HONESTLY RECALL, BUT WE DID HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT. I THINK I'VE HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH A NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, AND MY ANSWER HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT THAT, SO, JUDGE, I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY IF HE ASKED ME POINTEDLY THAT QUESTION OR IF IT CAME UP IN THE COURSE
OF A CONVERSATION. >> BUT HE UNDERSTOOD THAT HE COULD REDISTRICT BASED UPON YOUR ANSWER, SOMEBODY OUT.
>> HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT.
>> AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT GIVES ME THE UNSAVORY TASTE. IT'S NOT THAT WE DID SOMETHING THAT THE EFFECT HURT SOMEBODY OUT THERE, LIKE YOU SAID, JOHN, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE PEOPLE LIVE, YOU COULD BE XING SOMEBODY OUT TWO YEARS FROM NOW THAT SAYS I WANT TO RUN AGAINST JOHN MAREZ, BUT THERE ARE COINCIDENCES, AND THEN THERE'S INTENTION. AND WHAT WE HAVE HERE IN MY OPINION IS YOU KNOW, AT LEAST, UNDERSTANDING A KNOWLEDGE AND A REQUEST THAT RESULTED IN AN OUTCOME. AND ALL I'M ASKING IS TO TAKE A VOTE TO AT LEAST ASK MR. GARZA TO SEE WHAT THOSE CHANGES WOULD BE, IF IT'S THE WILL OF THE COURT TO DO IT, SO BE IT, AND IF IT'S NOT, SO BE IT. THE FACT THAT MR. GONZALEZ DIDN'T CHOOSE TO STAY ON THE PHONE IS HIS CHOICE AND HE SEEMED VERY ADAMANT THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING. HE DOESN'T FEEL ANY
REMORSE. >> JUDGE, I GOT TO GO TOO, THIS HAS GONE ON FOR HOURS LONGER THAN WE HAD TO. COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE, I WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE
HERE, I GOTTAL FUNERAL TO GO TO. >> I THINK CANVASSING THE VOTE.
>> AND APPARENTLY WHEN THERE'S BACK DOOR DEALS.
>> AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ SAID THAT
DIDN'T HAPPEN. >> AND IT WAS REFUTED,
>> I GET IT, HE SAID THERE WAS AND HE SAID THERE WASN'T. LET'S BE FAIR IN THE ASSESSMENT. I'M NOT GETTING INTO THE BUSINESS OF DECIDING IF MR. GARZA IS REMEMBERING CORRECTLY OR COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ IS LYING, I'M NOT DOING THAT.
>> I THINK WE JUST DID IT. >> I'LL CALL THE VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PLEASE SIGNIFICANT IF I BUY SAYING AYE.
>> AYE. >> NOT SURPRISING, ALL THOSE SIGNIFICANTFYING IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT SAY NO.
>> NO. >> EVERYBODY, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TODAY. THERE'S NO EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ADJOURNMENTS IN MEMORY?
>> NO. OKAY. WE ARE ADJOURNED, CARA, I HOPE YOU GET TO YOUR GAME, IT'S
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.