PIRT 1531 - Redistricting

From: FRANK & MARY RAKESTRAW
To: Turner, Denise

Subject: Fw: Fwd: Neighborhood Congress Meeting Dates - 2011
Date: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:06:40 PM
Mary Rakestraw
101 E. Avondale Drive
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639
----- Forwarded Message ----

From: Kathy Hartsell <hartsell24@triad.rr.com>
To: Mary Rakestraw <mary_rakestraw@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 7:09:15 PM
Subject: Fwd: Neighborhood Congress Meeting Dates - 2011
Hi Mary,
Great to see you.

Sorry this is late. I sent it to the wrong email address.
Have a great weekend.
Kathy
Kathy Hartsell
336-549-4441
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kathy Hartsell <hartsell24@triad.rr.com>

Date: December 30, 2010 9:01:12 AM EST
To: Mary Rakestraw <rakestrawcouncil@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Fwd: Neighborhood Congress Meeting Dates - 2011
Hi Mary,
The enclosed is the 2011 schedule for the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress
meetings. I remember you saying that you are interested in the meeting times and
locations but never received the schedule.
I hope to see you soon.
Take Care,
Kathy
Kathy Hartsell
336-549-4441
From: Donna Newton <bdnewt@yahoo.com>

Date: December 29, 2010 6:06:32 PM EST
To: Congress Listserve <gnc-l@lists.uncg.edu>
Subject: Neighborhood Congress Meeting Dates -
2011
Please mark your calendars now. The Congress meets on the

second Saturdays, from 9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.and on the
alternate second Thursdays,from 7:00 p.m.- 9:00 p.m. in the
Nussbaum Room of the Central Library. Please note the full
agenda for our first meeting of the year.
Saturday, January 8 - City Traffic Calming Tools;

Officer Nominations; RUCO Board
Nominations;Council Redistricting.
Thursday, February 10
Saturday, March 12
Thursday, April 14
Saturday, May 14
Thursday, June 9
Saturday, July 9
Thursday, August 11
Saturday, September 10
Thursday, October 13
Saturday, November 12
Donna
From: Cornwell, Tasha
To: Turner, Denise
Cc: Briggs, Cindy; Jones, Darryl
Subject: RE: additional redistricting search
Okay.
Tasha J. Cornwell, Security Compliance Officer

Information Technology Department
City of Greensboro
300 West Washington Street, Greensboro, NC 27401
Phone: (336) 335-5686 Fax: (336) 335-6496
www.greensboro-nc.gov
From: Turner, Denise

Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 1:14 PM
To: Cornwell, Tasha

Search time frame of Jan. 1, 2011 to present

To: Turner, Denise

10-4, will do.

City of Greensboro
Phone: (336) 335-5686 Fax: (336) 335-6496

To: Cornwell, Tasha
Cc: Briggs, Cindy
Subject: additional redistricting search

Sorry Tasha, I meant redistricting not farmers market.

To or from: Rashad Young or Denise Turner or Stephen Sherman
subject or content: redistricting or maps or precincts

Denise N. Turner, Assistant City Manager City of Greensboro
300 W. Washington Street
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
Phone: 336.373.2002 Fax: 336.373.2117
http://www.greensboro-nc.gov
To: Cornwell, Tasha
Search time frame of Jan. 1, 2011 to present

To: Turner, Denise

10-4, will do.

City of Greensboro
Phone: (336) 335-5686 Fax: (336) 335-6496

To: Cornwell, Tasha
Cc: Briggs, Cindy



Phone: 336.373.2002 Fax: 336.373.2117
To: Turner, Denise
10-4, will do.

City of Greensboro
Phone: (336) 335-5686 Fax: (336) 335-6496

To: Cornwell, Tasha
Cc: Briggs, Cindy



Phone: 336.373.2002 Fax: 336.373.2117
To: Cornwell, Tasha
Cc: Briggs, Cindy


Phone: 336.373.2002 Fax: 336.373.2117
From: Sherman, Stephen
To: Davis, Larry; Morgan, Robert (Bob)
Subject: RE: Redistricting - Mecklenburg County
Date: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 9:21:54 AM
Yes it is an interesting concept and one that is taking hold in numerous places. Along a similar vein,
there are a host of private websites springing up where individuals (or public interest groups) have
software which will allow the public to draw maps even without government sponsorship. GSO was so
early in the redistricting process none of the sites I’m aware of had NC municipal level data. However,
things will really get hopping for state legislatures and US Congressional seats later this year.
Stephen Sherman, GISP, GIS Manager
Department of Information Technology
City of Greensboro, NC
Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496
PO Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136

_____________________________________________
From: Davis, Larry
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 7:44 AM
To: Morgan, Robert (Bob)
Cc: Sherman, Stephen
Subject: Redistricting - Mecklenburg County
Interesting concept….don’t suppose they have been

watching our fun……..
-------------------------------------
Tool Name
Close
tool goes here
County gives public chance to

redistrict
Online tool lets you propose school board and county
commission voting districts.
By Mark Price
msprice@charlotteobserver.com
Posted: Wednesday, May. 04, 2011
More Information
· How to redistrict
Mecklenburg County is offering an online tool that allows

anyone to sign on and offer ideas on how to redraw county
commission and school board districts.
To try it, visit: maps.co .mecklenburg.nc.us/redistricting
In what advocates say is a first for the state and a rarity for the nation,
Mecklenburg County is asking citizens to submit suggestions for
redrawing voting districts.
Specifically, an online tool went up Tuesday on the county's website,

giving step-by-step instructions on how anyone can redraw school board
and county commission districts by shifting precincts on a map.
The tool, which includes a tutorial, will be up through the first week of
June, when submissions are to be reviewed by a redistricting panel. That
panel is expected to craft a final plan to be voted on by county
commissioners in September.
County officials admit the redistricting tool may be a "frustrating puzzle"

for novices, due to requirements involving populations, races and political
affiliations.
But anyone willing to give it a shot could impact elections for a decade,
said Brian Francis, assistant to the county manager. "There's a great
possibility that one person out there will submit the plan ultimately
adopted by the board."
"This is definitely a level of public involvement that hasn't been seen

before in the redistricting process."
The online tool is being introduced at a time of heightened public

consternation over recent budget cuts for schools, libraries, and parks
and recreation facilities.
Protesters have accused both the library board and school board of
racism and favoritism, after inner-city areas felt the brunt of those cuts.
Commissioners have said they want two of the county's six districts to be
minority-majority; meaning a minority group makes up a majority of the
voters.
The redrawing process is being launched to offset population shifts

revealed by the 2010 census. For example, District 2 in west Charlotte
was a minority-majority district but now is less than 48 percent black.
The commission has nine members overall, three of them countywide at-
large seats.
Francis said the redistricting site attempts to bring a new openness to
what typically goes on behind closed doors. For that reason, the League
of Women Voters plans to promote the online tool.
"Redistricting is very obscure, in the sense that people don't pay much
attention to it. They don't realize the consequences," said Mary Klenz,
former Charlotte league president and a director on the league's national
board.
"The outcome of the way districts are put together has a tremendous
impact on the election process. ... We have to do a better job of
educating the public and this is an opportunity to do that."
The tool was Francis' idea, and was designed by the county's information
services unit.
He said he's not familiar with it being offered by other counties or cities.
Michael Crowell of UNC Chapel Hill's School of Government agrees that

it's a level of public access that is new for North Carolina.
But he said there have been variations offered by state governments here
and elsewhere. North Carolina has allowed the public to come in and use
state computers in Raleigh to offer suggestions for redrawing state
districts, he said.
He's also heard of states like Virginia hosting competitions to let the
public redraw districts, with the winning submission getting money.
"I'm not aware of any local governments in North Carolina offering this,"
said Crowell, noting most don't have the necessary software.
"It will be interesting to see how many plans are submitted on the
Mecklenburg system and how many are useful."
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/05/04/2270226/county-

gives-public-chance-to.html#ixzz1LNoXSGlS
From: Davis, Larry
To: Morgan, Robert (Bob)
Cc: Sherman, Stephen
Subject: Redistricting - Mecklenburg County
Date: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 7:43:48 AM
Interesting concept….don’t suppose they have been watching our

fun……..
-------------------------------------
Tool Name
Close
tool goes here
County gives public chance to

redistrict
Online tool lets you propose school board and county commission
voting districts.
By Mark Price
msprice@charlotteobserver.com
Posted: Wednesday, May. 04, 2011
More Information
· How to redistrict
Mecklenburg County is offering an online tool that allows anyone to sign

on and offer ideas on how to redraw county commission and school
board districts.
To try it, visit: maps.co .mecklenburg.nc.us/redistricting
In what advocates say is a first for the state and a rarity for the nation, Mecklenburg
County is asking citizens to submit suggestions for redrawing voting districts.
Specifically, an online tool went up Tuesday on the county's website, giving step-by-
step instructions on how anyone can redraw school board and county commission
districts by shifting precincts on a map.
The tool, which includes a tutorial, will be up through the first week of June, when
submissions are to be reviewed by a redistricting panel. That panel is expected to
craft a final plan to be voted on by county commissioners in September.
County officials admit the redistricting tool may be a "frustrating puzzle" for novices,
due to requirements involving populations, races and political affiliations.
But anyone willing to give it a shot could impact elections for a decade, said Brian
Francis, assistant to the county manager. "There's a great possibility that one person
out there will submit the plan ultimately adopted by the board."
"This is definitely a level of public involvement that hasn't been seen before in the
redistricting process."
The online tool is being introduced at a time of heightened public consternation over
recent budget cuts for schools, libraries, and parks and recreation facilities.
Protesters have accused both the library board and school board of racism and
favoritism, after inner-city areas felt the brunt of those cuts.
Commissioners have said they want two of the county's six districts to be minority-
majority; meaning a minority group makes up a majority of the voters.
The redrawing process is being launched to offset population shifts revealed by the
2010 census. For example, District 2 in west Charlotte was a minority-majority
district but now is less than 48 percent black.
The commission has nine members overall, three of them countywide at-large seats.
Francis said the redistricting site attempts to bring a new openness to what typically
goes on behind closed doors. For that reason, the League of Women Voters plans to
promote the online tool.
"Redistricting is very obscure, in the sense that people don't pay much attention to
it. They don't realize the consequences," said Mary Klenz, former Charlotte league
president and a director on the league's national board.
"The outcome of the way districts are put together has a tremendous impact on the
election process. ... We have to do a better job of educating the public and this is
an opportunity to do that."
The tool was Francis' idea, and was designed by the county's information services
unit.
He said he's not familiar with it being offered by other counties or cities.
Michael Crowell of UNC Chapel Hill's School of Government agrees that it's a level of
public access that is new for North Carolina.
But he said there have been variations offered by state governments here and
elsewhere. North Carolina has allowed the public to come in and use state
computers in Raleigh to offer suggestions for redrawing state districts, he said.
He's also heard of states like Virginia hosting competitions to let the public redraw
districts, with the winning submission getting money.
"I'm not aware of any local governments in North Carolina offering this," said
Crowell, noting most don't have the necessary software.
"It will be interesting to see how many plans are submitted on the Mecklenburg
system and how many are useful."
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/05/04/2270226/county-gives-public-

chance-to.html#ixzz1LNoXSGlS
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: Fwd: REDISTRICTING - 3 New Plans on the City website
Date: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:03:31 PM
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

From: "pbrown3308@aol.com" <pbrown3308@aol.com>
To: mary_rakestraw@bellsouth.net
Sent: Mon, April 25, 2011 4:24:41 PM
Subject: Fwd: REDISTRICTING - 3 New Plans on the City website
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Mon, Apr 25, 2011 11:57 am
Subject: REDISTRICTING - 3 New Plans on the City website
There are now 3 new plans on the City website: http://www.greensboro-

nc.gov/citygovernment/council/Redistricting/
Donna
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: Fwd: Two New Redistricting Plans Proposed
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

Sent: Mon, April 25, 2011 5:15:59 PM
Subject: Fwd: Two New Redistricting Plans Proposed
Sent: Mon, Apr 25, 2011 12:35 pm
Subject: Two New Redistricting Plans Proposed
Two New Redistricting Plans Proposed
GREENSBORO, NC (April 25, 2011) – Greensboro City Councilmember Trudy Wade has
proposed two plans that would redistrict the current City Council boundary lines. The
recommendations come as City Council is expected to reconsider its vote to approve an earlier
proposed redistricting plan, which occurred during its April 19 meeting.
The proposed Plan D impacts 4,583 residents and two precincts (G31, G56) while proposed Plan E
affects 5,522 residents and four precincts (G31, G56, JEF1.2, JEF2.1). To view the proposals visit
www.greensboro-nc.gov/redistricting.
# # #
The City works with the community to improve the quality of life for residents through inclusion, diversity, and
trust. As the seventh largest employer in Greensboro, the City has a professional staff of 2,800 employees who
maintain the values of honesty, integrity, stewardship, and respect. The City is governed by a council-manager
form of government with a mayor and eight council members. For more information on the City, visit
www.greensboro-nc.gov or call 336-373-CITY (2489).
=======================================================
Please note that email sent to and from this address is subject
to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: Fwd: Public Hearing on Redistricting Tuesday at 5:30 pm
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 3:12:04 PM
Subject: Fwd: Public Hearing on Redistricting Tuesday at 5:30 pm
Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 7:46 am
Subject: Public Hearing on Redistricting Tuesday at 5:30 pm
Public Hearing on Redistricting Tuesday at 5:30 pm
WHAT: Public Hearing on Redistricting
WHEN: Tuesday, May 3 – 5:30 pm (during City Council meeting)
WHERE: Council Chamber in Melvin Municipal Office Building,

300 W. Washington St.
WHO: A public hearing to receive community comments on

redistricting will be held during Greensboro City Council’s meeting on
Tuesday. The Council meeting begins at 5:30 pm and the redistricting
hearing is scheduled as agenda item No. 17. Residents who would
like to address redistricting are encouraged to attend.
For more information, visit www.greensboro-nc.gov/redistricting.

To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: Fwd: Legal Challege to City Districts
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

Sent: Fri, April 22, 2011 10:04:16 AM
Subject: Fwd: Legal Challege to City Districts
Sent: Thu, Apr 21, 2011 10:26 am
Subject: Legal Challege to City Districts
Please click on the following link for the story about the challenge to the City
Council's change to our City Council District boundaries.
http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/04/21/article/group_to_challenge_city_redistricting_map
Donna
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: Fwd: Second City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed
Attachments: ATT00001..htm
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

Sent: Fri, April 22, 2011 10:03:33 AM
Subject: Fwd: Second City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed
Sent: Mon, Apr 18, 2011 2:45 pm
Subject: Second City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed
Second City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed

GREENSBORO, NC (April 18, 2011) – Greensboro City Councilmember T. Dianne
Bellamy-Small has recommended a plan that would redistrict the current City Council
district boundaries. Any recommendation would require the approval of City Council
and the US Department of Justice.
US Supreme Court decisions suggest that if the variance between district populations –
when comparing the lowest populated district with the highest – is 10 percent or less,
redistricting may not be necessary according to guidelines in the 14th Amendment.
Greensboro’s total variance rate is 9.2 percent, with the greatest variance existing
between Districts 4 and 5.
Councilmember Bellamy-Small's proposal creates a population balance of 5.3 percent.
The plan alters the boundaries of one precinct (G62).
While the City does not appear to be in violation of the 14th Amendment, which
requires districts to be equally populated, City Council can still elect to redistrict to
further reduce the existing variance and create more balance between districts. Without
redistricting, Greensboro still meets other US Department of Justice district boundary
requirements, including maintaining two majority-minority districts.
Councilmember Bellamy-Small's proposal, as well as the proposal made last week by
Councilmember Mary Rakestraw, will be discussed during the April 19 City Council
meeting. For more information, visit www.greensboro-nc.gov/redistricting.
# # #
The City works with the community to improve the quality of life for residents through
inclusion, diversity, and trust. As the seventh largest employer in Greensboro, the City
has a professional staff of 2,800 employees who maintain the values of honesty,
integrity, stewardship, and respect. The City is governed by a council-manager form of
government with a mayor and eight council members. For more information on the City,
visit www.greensboro-nc.gov or call 373-CITY (2489).

Debby Davis, Web Editor
Public Affairs Department
City of Greensboro
Phone: 373-3640
PO Box 3136

=======================================================
third parties.
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: Fwd: City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

Sent: Fri, April 22, 2011 10:02:54 AM
Subject: Fwd: City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed
Mary,
Here's the first "Congress Listserv" email pertaining to the redistricting plan.
More to come!
Peggy
P.S. I'm going to send you a sampling of the emails that come...
Sent: Sat, Apr 16, 2011 3:10 am
Subject: City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed
City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed
GREENSBORO, NC (April 15, 2011) – Greensboro City Councilmember Mary Rakestraw has
recommended a plan that would redistrict the current City Council district boundaries. The
recommendation requires the approval of City Council and the U.S. Department of Justice.
U.S. Supreme Court decisions suggest that if the variance between district populations – when
comparing the lowest populated district with the highest – is 10 percent or less, redistricting may
not be necessary according to guidelines in the 14th Amendment. Greensboro’s total variance rate
is 9.2 percent, with the greatest variance existing between Districts 4 and 5.
Councilmember Rakestraw’s proposal creates a population balance of 7.0 percent. The plan
impacts 11 precincts, converting 10 full and one partial district into new boundaries.
While the City does not appear to be in violation of the 14th Amendment, which requires districts
to be equally populated, City Council can still elect to redistrict to further reduce the existing
variance and create more balance between districts. Without redistricting, Greensboro still meets
other US Department of Justice district boundary requirements, including maintaining two
majority-minority districts.
Councilmember Rakestraw’s proposal will be discussed during the April 19 City Council meeting.
For more information, visit www.greensboro-nc.gov/redistricting.
# # #
The City works with the community to improve the quality of life for residents through inclusion, diversity, and
trust. As the seventh largest employer in Greensboro, the City has a professional staff of 2,800 employees who
maintain the values of honesty, integrity, stewardship, and respect. The City is governed by a council-manager
form of government with a mayor and eight council members. For more information on the City, visit
www.greensboro-nc.gov or call 336-373-CITY (2489).

City of Greensboro
Phone: 373-3640
PO Box 3136
=======================================================
third parties.
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: Fwd: April Meeting Notes PLUS the Redistricting Issue
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

Sent: Fri, April 22, 2011 7:11:09 PM
Subject: Fwd: April Meeting Notes PLUS the Redistricting Issue
From: bbkchowsky <bbkchowsky@earthlink.net>
To: Donna Newton <bdnewt@yahoo.com>; Congress Listserve <gnc-l@lists.uncg.edu>
Cc: Brenda Coleman <brencolm@bellsouth.net>; Dalton L. Smith <FOOTNEY@WEBTV.NET>; MARY
MCGEHEE <MARYMAC0266@aol.com>; DBLACKSTOCK <DBLACKSTOCK@bellsouth.net>;
BLACKSTOCK1 <BLACKSTOCK1@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Fri, Apr 22, 2011 2:09 pm
Subject: RE: April Meeting Notes PLUS the Redistricting Issue
Listserve; My opinion is that we do away with District representation altogether.

I firmly believe it simply divides the city! Each elected councilman should represent all of us
equally! There are many people in sections of District 2 for example, who have felt ignored for
years! I, for one.
BB Knowles
3102 Orange St.
GSO 27405
----- Original Message -----

From: Donna Newton
To: Congress Listserve
Sent: 4/22/2011 3:25:35 PM
Subject: April Meeting Notes PLUS the Redistricting Issue
Thanks again to Ann Stringfield for the attached notes from the April 14 GNC
meeting. Please remember that the Mayor will be our guest speaker at the
May 14 meeting. See important video links in the P.S. below.
I'm sure most of you know that there has been significant backlash to the
redistricting plan submitted by Mary Rakestraw and released to the public at
about 7:00 p.m. on Friday, April 15 and then voted on in Council on Tuesday,
April 19. Due to the short notice of the vote, we did not have time to organize
any action, so I spoke at the April 19 meeting and advised Council of our
March 12 meeting in which Zack Matheny was our guest speaker. I explained
that the consensus at that meeting was to not make any changes to district
boundaries at this time. There were 19 who spoke against the Rakestraw plan
at the Council meeting, all saying not to change the districts. All of the
speakers explained that at every meeting Zack convened on the redistricting,
the residents voiced the same objection to making any changes. There were
no speakers in support of the Rakestraw plan. Yet the vote was 4 to 3 to
approve the plan, with the shocker being that Nancy Vaughn cast one of the
approving votes. Neither Zack Matheny nor Danny Thompson were present.
Diane Bellamy Small was present through a long distance call in.
Nancy has now called for the Council to reconsider that vote and to conduct a
more open process. However, there's no guarantee that the current vote will
be overturned and a number of Council, including Nancy, are saying they
need to do some kind of redistricting because it's going to be necessary if we
have an annexation. My response to the Council members with whom I have
communicated is that they should wait until we are required to redistrict. I
have expressed to them that based on the many calls I've received from
residents, this Council has lost its cre dibility with this process.
I do not have time to go into more detail on this, but I strongly suggest that f
you haven't been reading about it, please do catch up through the News and
Record and YES Weekly and by viewing the Addendum portion of the April 19
Council meeting video for which I've provided the link below. Please form your
own conclusions and advise all Council members of your views on this matter.
Donna
P.S. Here is the link to the video stream that is referenced in the April meeting
notes http://greensboro.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?
view_id=2&clip_id=1141
as well as a link to the video stream of the April 19 Council
meetinghttp://greensboro.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?
When you link to the April 19 meeting, jump to the
Addendum in the video to see the portion of the meeting
on the redistricting.
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: Fwd: April Meeting Notes PLUS the Redistricting Issue
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

Sent: Fri, April 22, 2011 8:54:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: April Meeting Notes PLUS the Redistricting Issue
Good gravy.
From: Linda Waddell <bluedaniel72000@yahoo.com>
To: bbkchowsky <bbkchowsky@earthlink.net>; Donna Newton <bdnewt@yahoo.com>; Congress
Listserve <gnc-l@lists.uncg.edu>
MCGEHEE <MARYMAC0266@aol.com>; DBLACKSTOCK <DBLACKSTOCK@bellsouth.net>;
BLACKSTOCK1 <BLACKSTOCK1@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Fri, Apr 22, 2011 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: April Meeting Notes PLUS the Redistricting Issue
I agree wtih this email messager....But, then if we get another bunch like this who are
easily pursuaded by their associates, we will still be right where we are today.
Linda M. Waddell
From: "bbkchowsky@earthlink.net" <bbkchowsky@earthlink.net>

To: Donna Newton <bdnewt@yahoo.com>; Congress Listserve <gnc-l@lists.uncg.edu>
MCGEHEE <MARYMAC0266@aol.com>; DBLACKSTOCK@bellsouth.net; BLACKSTOCK1@bellsouth.net
Sent: Fri, April 22, 2011 3:08:54 PM
Subject: RE: April Meeting Notes PLUS the Redistricting Issue
Listserve; My opinion is that we do away with District representation altogether.

I firmly believe it simply divides the city! Each elected councilman should represent all of
us equally! There are many people in sections of District 2 for example, who have felt
ignored for years! I, for one.
BB Knowles
3102 Orange St.
GSO 27405

From: Donna Newton
Sent: 4/22/2011 3:25:35 PM
residents, this Council has lost its cre dibility with this process.
Donna
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: redistricting issue
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

From: Nancy Vaughan <NVaughan@triad.rr.com>
To: "Young, Rashad" <Rashad.Young@greensboro-nc.gov>
Cc: "Danny Thompson (dannythompson@triad.rr.com)" <dannythompson@triad.rr.com>; "Bellamy-
Small, T. Dianne" <Dianne.Bellamy-Small@greensboro-nc.gov>; "Jim Kee (jimkee2009@yahoo.com)"
<jimkee2009@yahoo.com>; "Mary Rakestraw (mary_rakestraw@bellsouth.net)"
<mary_rakestraw@bellsouth.net>; "Perkins, Robbie" <rperkins@naipt.com>; "Wade, Trudy"
<twade2@triad.rr.com>; "wknight@triad.rr.com" <wknight@triad.rr.com>; "Matheny, Zack"
<zackmatheny@gmail.com>; CMO <CMO@greensboro-nc.gov>; "Danish, Julia"
<Julia.Danish@greensboro-nc.gov>
Sent: Thu, April 21, 2011 5:25:05 PM
Subject: Re: redistricting issue
After speaking with the Mayor we thought it would be a good opportunity to discuss
procedure. No preliminary staff work will be necessary. If, as a council, we decide to hold
another public hearing it would allow us to discuss dates and to advertise without waiting for
our next meeting. Our intention is for this to be a brief discussion especially since it was an
already full agenda.
Nancy
On Apr 21, 2011, at 4:58 PM, "Young, Rashad" <Rashad.Young@greensboro-nc.gov>

wrote:
Mayor and Members,
Joe Killian from the N&R called to ask me about the process we are following
on the redistricting plan that was approved at Tuesday’s Council Meeting and
was I aware of Councilmember Vaughn’s intent to move for the matter to be
reconsidered. I told Joe that I was aware of Councilmember Vaughns intent to
ask for reconsideration as she called me about 2pm this afternoon. I told Joe, in
response to his question, that a member from the prevailing side could bring up a
matter for consideration and if seconded and a majority concurred, the matter
would be back before the Council. I also told Joe, in response to his question,
that I intended to submit the plan that was approved on Tuesday as soon as the
package of information and supporting documentation required by DOJ was
completed because I could not presume to know what the outcome of a motion
for reconsideration and potential decision would be. If Council made a
subsequent determination with respect to redistricting that we would have to
advise DOJ accordingly.
I finally told Joe, after he told me it was the Mayor’s intent to bring this matter
up for discussion about what sort of process to proceed with, that if the Council
decided at its worksession on Tuesday that it wanted to hold up on the
submission of the package to DOJ assuming we wouldn’t have already submitted
it on Monday (we are submitting it as soon as it is completed and are working
through the weekend to put it together) that we would hold off.
Should you have any questions, please let me know.
RY
Rashad Young
City Manager
City of Greensboro
PO Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402
(336) 373-2002
=======================================================
third parties.
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw:
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

From: Nancy Vaughan <NVaughan@triad.rr.com>
Cc: Bill Knight <wknight@triad.rr.com>; "Perkins, Robbie" <rperkins@naipt.com>; Danny Thompson
<dannythompson@triad.rr.com>; Jim Kee <jimkee2009@yahoo.com>; "Bellamy-Small, T. Dianne"
<Dianne.Bellamy-Small@greensboro-nc.gov>; Zack Matheny <ZMatheny@bellpartnersinc.com>; Mary C
Rakestraw <mary_rakestraw@bellsouth.net>; "Wade, Trudy" <twade2@triad.rr.com>
Sent: Tue, April 26, 2011 8:13:42 AM
Subject: Re:
Thank you for checking. My question was prior to Dr Wade's maps. I think that we have three strong
options.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 26, 2011, at 7:59 AM, "Young, Rashad" <Rashad.Young@greensboro-nc.gov> wrote:
> Nancy,
>
> Pursuant to your question to me on Thursday as to whether or not the filing deadline could
potentially be delayed by two weeks, George Gilbert has advised us that it cannot be delayed beyond
the dates set.
>
> RY
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> =======================================================
> Please note that email sent to and from this address is subject
> to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
> third parties.
> <winmail.dat>
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

To: COMM. LINDA SHAW(GUILFORD CO) <imlshaw@aol.com>
Cc: MARY RAKESTRAW <Mary_Rakestraw@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sat, April 16, 2011 1:07:07 PM
Subject: FW: City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed
BB Knowles
President & Founder
www.ncvaw.org
SAVE THIS LINK: http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm
GOOD READ: http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2010/11/welcome.html
DOG FIGHTING TIP? $5000 REWARD!
REPORT DOG FIGHTING BY CALLING THIS 24HOUR TIP-LINE:
1-877-TIP-HSUS (1-877-847-4787)
NEW!NEW! PUPPY MILL TIP LINE

1-877-MILL-TIP (1-877-645-5847)
JOIN US ON FACEBOOK:)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/North-Carolina-Voters-for-Animal-Welfare/134857435980
"Thus it is said that one who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be endangered in
a hundred engagements."
Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
````````````````````````

From: Donna Newton
Sent: 4/16/2011 7:10:02 AM
Subject: City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed
City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed
GREENSBORO, NC (April 15, 2011) – Greensboro City Councilmember Mary Rakestraw

has recommended a plan that would redistrict the current City Council district boundaries.
The recommendation requires the approval of City Council and the U.S. Department of
Justice.
U.S. Supreme Court decisions suggest that if the variance between district populations –
when comparing the lowest populated district with the highest – is 10 percent or less,
redistricting may not be necessary according to guidelines in the 14th Amendment.
Greensboro’s total variance rate is 9.2 percent, with the greatest variance existing between
Districts 4 and 5.
Councilmember Rakestraw’s proposal creates a population balance of 7.0 percent. The

plan impacts 11 precincts, converting 10 full and one partial district into new boundaries.
While the City does not appear to be in violation of the 14th Amendment, which requires
districts to be equally populated, City Council can still elect to redistrict to further reduce
the existing variance and create more balance between districts. Without redistricting,
Greensboro still meets other US Department of Justice district boundary requirements,
including maintaining two majority-minority districts.
Councilmember Rakestraw’s proposal will be discussed during the April 19 City Council
meeting. For more information, visit www.greensboro-nc.gov/redistricting.
# # #
The City works with the community to improve the quality of life for residents through inclusion,
diversity, and trust. As the seventh largest employer in Greensboro, the City has a professional staff of
2,800 employees who maintain the values of honesty, integrity, stewardship, and respect. The City is
governed by a council-manager form of government with a mayor and eight council members. For more
information on the City, visit www.greensboro-nc.gov or call 336-373-CITY (2489).
City of Greensboro
Phone: 373-3640
PO Box 3136
=======================================================
third parties.
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: Redistricting vote
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

From: FRANK & MARY RAKESTRAW <mary_rakestraw@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 5:24:43 PM
Subject: Re: Redistricting vote
That being the case, and the calendar is rolling toward filing time, will you forward this
approved plan to the Justice Dept quickly?
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639
From: "Young, Rashad" <Rashad.Young@greensboro-nc.gov>

To: Bill Knight <wknight@triad.rr.com>; Danny Thompson <dannythompson@triad.rr.com>; "Perkins,
Robbie" <rperkins@naipt.com>; "Vaughan, Nancy" <NVaughan@triad.rr.com>; Jim Kee
<jimkee2009@yahoo.com>; "Bellamy-Small, T. Dianne" <Dianne.Bellamy-Small@greensboro-nc.gov>;
Zack Matheny <ZMatheny@bellpartnersinc.com>; Mary C Rakestraw <mary_rakestraw@bellsouth.net>;
"Wade, Trudy" <twade2@triad.rr.com>
Cc: "Danish, Julia" <Julia.Danish@greensboro-nc.gov>; "Turner, Denise" <Denise.Turner@greensboro-
nc.gov>; "Sherman, Stephen" <Stephen.Sherman@greensboro-nc.gov>
Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 4:31:47 PM
Subject: Redistricting vote
Mayor and Members,
The News and Record has reported in today's paper that a second vote is required to effectuate the
vote taken yesterday by City Council affirming a redistricting plan. This is not the case. No additional
vote is required to move the redistricting plan approved forward.
Should you have any questions, please advise.
Rashad
Sent from my iPhone
=======================================================
third parties.
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: Redistricting in Greensboro
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

From: "Jackson, Laura" <Laura.Jackson@pruyostandlittle.com>
To: "mary_rakestraw@bellsouth.net" <mary_rakestraw@bellsouth.net>
Cc: "Donna & Bob Newton (bdnewt@yahoo.com)" <bdnewt@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 11:41:58 AM
Subject: Redistricting in Greensboro
Mary,

First of all, thank you very much for attending the walk through Ardmore Park Community yesterday. I appreciated the fact that you
and your husband both walked.

As the GNC 4th District liasion person, I am writing to share information you may not have had before. Recently Zack Matheny and
the city employee who has helped with previous redistricting plans shared the redistricting process with the Greensboro Neighborhood
Congress. Once we were better educated, GNC members knowing that we are in compliance with the requirements and,
especially because a contentious redistricting took place just two years ago, let it be known we would prefer no changes to City Council
Districts.

There are more pressing concerns in the City like avoiding a tax increase. Going through an unnecessay redistricting costs
money. Congress members would rather City Council focus on how to retain as many city services as possible while keeping our tax
bill as low as possible.

Having been the GNC Membership chair for several years, I know that some citizens do not even know what neighborhood they live in
and are confused about their City Council District. I have arranged the GNC neighborhood members according to voting districts so
that we can inform neighborhood leaders which City Council Member should be focused on their neighborhood issues when those
concerns are not city-wide issues. My point is any changes cause a great deal of unnecessary confusion here locally.

Remember that this year North Carolina will be changing voting districts. That happens only every 10 years. Were it possible to
anticipate large annexations that will affect the Council Districts make a plan now to ensure that Greensboro goes throught the costly
redistricting hassle only once every 10 years following the census.

Oh yes, keep in mind that because of the census there is a possibility that redistricting may be necessary in Guilford County, which is
already thinking of increasing our taxes.
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: IMPORTANT- Redistricting - Proposal will change Lindley Park and Dudley Heights districts
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

To: COMM. LINDA SHAW(GUILFORD CO) <imlshaw@aol.com>
Cc: MARY RAKESTRAW <Mary_Rakestraw@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Mon, April 18, 2011 3:07:47 PM
Subject: FW: IMPORTANT- Redistricting - Proposal will change Lindley Park and Dudley Heights
districts
BB Knowles
President & Founder
www.ncvaw.org
1-877-TIP-HSUS (1-877-847-4787)

1-877-MILL-TIP (1-877-645-5847)
````````````````````````

From: Donna Newton
Sent: 4/18/2011 2:45:40 PM
Subject: IMPORTANT- Redistricting - Proposal will change Lindley Park and Dudley Heights
districts
Please link to:

http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/NR/exeres/53722579-2A7E-4577-
8A57-1D429E36E6D1,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Published
to learn about the redistricting map that Council Representative

Mary Rakestraw is proposing. There are a number of changes
that will have significant impact on council district lines and on
voting precincts. These changes should be of particular interest to
residents of Lindley Park and Dudley Heights. However, there are
other changes that are also of consequence to various other
communities.
At the moment, the only media I have seen report on this is the
Yes Weekly Blog: http://yesweeklyblog.blogspot.com/ entitled
"Jettisoning Active and Progressive Lindley Park Voters". I'm
hoping something will be in the News and Record tomorrow
morning.
Remember that at the March GNC meeting where we discussed

the possible redistricting, we learned that the districts still meet
the federal criteria after the recent census, so there is no
compelling legal reason to change the districts. Attendees at the
meeting expressed great concern about spending time and
money on changing districts that we were not required to change.
They also expressed exasperation with changing districts to
benefit particular Council members.
We understand that the Council is scheduled to talk about the

proposed map at tomorrow night's Council meeting, but it is not
on the Council agenda and will likely be handled as an
addendum. If so, there will be no opportunity for residents to sign
up to speak about it at the meeting. Residents who have
concerns or who want Council to provide an open review and
community discussion of any proposed chance to Council districts
and/or voting precincts can voice their opinions before tomorrow's
meeting and communicate with all Council members at:
http://www.greensboro-
nc.gov/citygovernment/council/emailcouncil.htm
Donna
202-4309
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Fw: IMPORTANT- Redistricting - Proposal will change Lindley Park and Dudley Heights districts
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

To: MARY RAKESTRAW <Mary_Rakestraw@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Mon, April 18, 2011 8:07:06 PM
Subject: FW: IMPORTANT- Redistricting - Proposal will change Lindley Park and Dudley Heights
districts
BB Knowles
President & Founder
www.ncvaw.org
1-877-TIP-HSUS (1-877-847-4787)

1-877-MILL-TIP (1-877-645-5847)
````````````````````````

From: Donna Newton
Sent: 4/18/2011 2:45:40 PM
Subject: IMPORTANT- Redistricting - Proposal will change Lindley Park and Dudley Heights
districts
Please link to:

http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/NR/exeres/53722579-2A7E-4577-
8A57-1D429E36E6D1,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Published
to learn about the redistricting map that Council Representative

Mary Rakestraw is proposing. There are a number of changes
that will have significant impact on council district lines and on
voting precincts. These changes should be of particular interest to
residents of Lindley Park and Dudley Heights. However, there are
other changes that are also of consequence to various other
communities.
At the moment, the only media I have seen report on this is the
Yes Weekly Blog: http://yesweeklyblog.blogspot.com/ entitled
"Jettisoning Active and Progressive Lindley Park Voters". I'm
hoping something will be in the News and Record tomorrow
morning.
Remember that at the March GNC meeting where we discussed

the possible redistricting, we learned that the districts still meet
the federal criteria after the recent census, so there is no
compelling legal reason to change the districts. Attendees at the
meeting expressed great concern about spending time and
money on changing districts that we were not required to change.
They also expressed exasperation with changing districts to
benefit particular Council members.
We understand that the Council is scheduled to talk about the

proposed map at tomorrow night's Council meeting, but it is not
on the Council agenda and will likely be handled as an
addendum. If so, there will be no opportunity for residents to sign
up to speak about it at the meeting. Residents who have
concerns or who want Council to provide an open review and
community discussion of any proposed chance to Council districts
and/or voting precincts can voice their opinions before tomorrow's
meeting and communicate with all Council members at:
http://www.greensboro-
nc.gov/citygovernment/council/emailcouncil.htm
Donna
202-4309
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: REDISTRICTING EMAILS 1ST OF 15
Attachments: 2011AprilGNCmeetingNotes.doc
Mary Rakestraw
Greensboro NC 27403
PH 1-336-852-8639

To: MARY RAKESTRAW <Mary_Rakestraw@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Fri, April 22, 2011 3:40:30 PM
Subject: FW: April Meeting Notes PLUS the Redistricting Issue
BB Knowles
President & Founder
www.ncvaw.org
1-877-TIP-HSUS (1-877-847-4787)

1-877-MILL-TIP (1-877-645-5847)
````````````````````````

From: Donna Newton
Sent: 4/22/2011 3:25:35 PM
residents, this Council has lost its credibility with this process.
Donna
From: Wade, Trudy
To: Young, Rashad
Subject: Fwd: Suggested Changes to Redistricting Plan E
Date: Monday, May 02, 2011 2:21:17 PM
Attachments: Plan E.pdf
ATT00001..htm
Plan E Amended.pdf
ATT00002..htm
Trudy Wade
From: "Sherman, Stephen" <Stephen.Sherman@greensboro-nc.gov>

Date: April 26, 2011 8:48:47 AM EDT
To: "Wade, Trudy" <Trudy.Wade@greensboro-nc.gov>, "Wade, Trudy"
<twade2@triad.rr.com>
Cc: "Turner, Denise" <Denise.Turner@greensboro-nc.gov>
Subject: Suggested Changes to Redistricting Plan E
As I have done some additional work around the issue of keeping all of JEF1 in District 2
and all of JEF2 in District 1 as whole precincts (i.e., reflecting George Gilbert’s view that
precincts should not be split), I found that there are a couple of other slivers of JEF2 that
could be assigned to District 1.

The changes are really insignificant and involve 26 people. If you would like me to I can:

1. Make the needed adjustments to JEF2 so that all of it is assigned to District 1;
and,

2. I don’t think that the changes are significant enough to designate this as a new
plan. Rather, I suggest that I produce an updated map, generate new reports
and simply date them as of today. I can also footnote the plan saying that it
replaces the earlier Plan E.

I’ve attached maps of both the original Plan E and the amended Plan E.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

=======================================================
third parties.
To: Richardson, Betsey
Subject: FW: Materials for Redistricting Public Hearing
Date: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:07:29 PM
Attachments: Plan A Presentation Map.pdf
Plan A Precinct Change Map.pdf
Plan B Precinct Change Map.pdf
Plan B Presentation Map.pdf
Plan C Presentation Map.pdf
Plan C Precinct Change Map.pdf
Plan D Precinct Change Map.pdf
Plan D Presentation Map.pdf
Plan E Precinct Change Map.pdf
Redistricting Plan Comparison.pdf
Plan E Presentation Map.pdf

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:37 PM
To: Turner, Denise
Cc: Danish, Julia; Peterson-Buie, Becky
Subject: Materials for Redistricting Public Hearing

I’ve put together same background materials that you may (or may not) want to use for Tuesday’s
public hearing. I’ve attached the following:
1. Tabloid (11 x 17) sized maps for each plan. These are essentially the same as the maps used
on April 19 th (plus the addition of plans D and E);
2. Letter sized maps for each plan that highlight the precincts being moved via that plan; and,
3. A one page comparison sheet that summarizes all of the plans.
I can work with the Clerk to add these to the agenda packet before Tuesday. The letter sized items
could be put into a PowerPoint if needed (we did that in 2008).
As regards the naming convention:
· I have continued to label the 2008 plan as the “Current Plan” since this is the last plan
approved by the DOJ and represents the boundaries in force until DOJ approval of some other
plan. I’ve footnoted that this is the plan which the DOJ will use for their pre-clearance
evaluation.
· I continue to label the plan adopted on the 19 th as “Plan B” and then describe it as the plan
adopted by Council on 4/19/2011.
One lingering issue,,,
· Councilperson Wade will undoubtedly what a definitive opinion on whether or not staff will
recommend against her Plan E because there are areas of Districts 1 and 2 that are not
contiguous. I do not believe that she is strongly tied to Plan E and will be satisfied to focus on
her Plan D if we recommend that contiguity should be preserved.
I haven’t heard of any new redistricting activities. If you’re OK with it, I’d like to be off Friday. I’ll check
my emails and can come in if something comes up.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

Subject: FW: Materials for Redistricting Public Hearing

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:37 PM
To: Turner, Denise

evaluation.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Turner, Denise
evaluation.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Turner, Denise
evaluation.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Wade, Trudy; Wade, Trudy
Cc: Turner, Denise
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:48:50 AM
Plan E Amended.pdf
As I have done some additional work around the issue of keeping all of JEF1 in District 2 and all of
JEF2 in District 1 as whole precincts (i.e., reflecting George Gilbert’s view that precincts should not be
split), I found that there are a couple of other slivers of JEF2 that could be assigned to District 1.


1. Make the needed adjustments to JEF2 so that all of it is assigned to District 1; and,

2. I don’t think that the changes are significant enough to designate this as a new plan. Rather, I
suggest that I produce an updated map, generate new reports and simply date them as of
today. I can also footnote the plan saying that it replaces the earlier Plan E.


Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

Cc: Turner, Denise
Plan E Amended.pdf





Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Wade, Trudy; Wade, Trudy (twade2@triad.rr.com)
Cc: Turner, Denise
Plan E Amended.pdf





Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Young, Rashad
Cc: Turner, Denise; Danish, Julia
Subject: Review of Wade Redistricting Plan E
Date: Monday, April 25, 2011 4:16:19 PM
Attachments: Plan E Precinct Change Map.pdf
CurrentDistricts.pdf
Per your request, I have prepared a description of the redistricting plan “E” proposed by
Councilperson Wade. In doing so, I’ve followed the same format I used in my previous overview of
other proposed redistricting plans. Maps associated with this overview are attached as .pdf files.
[Footnote… when I reference “current districts” I’m talking about the districts put in place in 2008,
not the district boundaries adopted on April 19 th ]

This plan is very similar to the current City Council district plan and involves the movement of
precinct G31 from District 3 to District 4 and the movement of precinct G56 from District 5 to District
1. The net effect of these two changes is to add population to District 4 (which is the smallest) and
remove population from District 5 (which is the largest). However it does so without changing the
boundary between Districts 4 and 5. In this regard it mirrors the Councilperson’s Plan D.

However, it differs from Plan D in that it also moves portions of the Jefferson 1 and Jefferson 2
precincts from District 1 to District 2. This results in a very low population variance. However, as
discussed below, it’s probably not legal to make this move.

1. Population Balance

Background: The number of people in each district does not need to be exactly equal. The
accepted variance between the largest district and the smallest district should be no greater that
10%.

The Current District Plan has a population variance of 9.2%
Councilperson Wade’s Plan E shows a closer population balance of 3.4%

Clearly Councilperson Wade’s Plan E has the advantage creating districts with a much better
population balance. To achieve this end, the author moves two full precincts and two partial
precincts. The precinct changing districts are shown in the attached .pdf.

2. Maintaining Constituent Relationships

Background: It is an accepted practice to consider the residence of an incumbent office holder
and to draw boundaries that leave incumbents within their current district.

The Current District Plan leaves all incumbents within their current district
Councilperson Wade’s Plan E mirrors the current district plan

3. Preserving existing cores

Background: As a general principal, redistricting plans that move fewer people into a new
district are preferred over plans that relocate larger numbers of people.

· The Current District Plan moves no people between districts
· Councilperson Wade’s Plan E moves 5,522 people to a different district.

While relatively few neighborhoods are split between districts (see below), a number do change
districts. Those where the entire neighborhood, or large parts of thereof, change districts are
shown below:

Rolling Woods Green Valley Garden Homes Chadberry
Guilford Hills

These are the same neighborhoods moved under Councilperson Wade’s Plan D.

4. Communities of Interest

Background: In drawing district boundaries it is desirable to create districts that do not divide
“communities of interest” between districts. In Greensboro, communities of interest have
historically been represented by neighborhoods.

The Current District Plan divides 11 neighborhoods.
Councilperson Wade’s Plan E divides 10 neighborhoods

These are the same neighborhoods divided under Councilperson Wade’s Plan D.

5. Honoring Political Boundaries

Background: This principal has greater application outside of a municipal setting. However, for
Greensboro, the goal is to develop plans that follow precinct boundaries.

Following precinct boundaries can be a challenge in municipal redistricting since annexations
never follow precinct boundaries. As a result, plans must take into account the fact that some
partial precincts will be present.

· The Current District Plan contains several partial precincts. These are assigned to districts
based on their contiguity with each Council district
· Councilperson Wade’s Plan E also contains partial precincts; however, these are assigned to
districts without regard to their contiguity with Council districts.

This is a significant difference in the Councilperson’s two plans and will be discussed in great
detail under the topic of Contiguous Geography.

6. Contiguous Geography

Background: Contiguous geography, frequently referred to as contiguity, is a basic requirement
of all district plans. Essentially, all areas of a district must be geographically connected. A
common rule is thumb is that a person should be able to travel to any area of a district without
crossing through another district.

As mentioned under the discussion on Honoring Political Boundaries, municipal boundaries do
not follow precinct boundaries. Historically, if different parts of the same precinct touched the
City at two different districts, parts of the precinct would be assigned, based on contiguity, to
each district.

George Gilbert, Director of the Guilford County Board of Elections, believes that precinct
boundaries should be honored to the exclusion of contiguity. In other words, if two different
parts of a precinct are contiguous with two different districts, the entire precinct should be
assigned to a single district even if it creates a situation where all areas of a district are no longer
contiguous.

· The Current District Plan assigns partial precincts to districts based on their contiguity. As a
result, on the eastern side of the City, parts of the JEF1 precinct are assigned to Districts 1
and 2. Similarly, portions of the JEF2 precinct are assigned to both Districts 1 and 2.
· Councilperson Wake’s Plan E assigns all of precinct JEF1 and all of JEF2 to District 2 without
regard to contiguity.

In my most recent conversation with the City Attorney, she has indicated that contiguity
supersedes administrative boundaries such as precincts. Mr. Gilbert has suggested that he has
an opinion from the State Attorney General’s Office to the contrary. The City Attorney has had a
conversation with the Attorney General’s Office last week. It is my understanding that she
continues to believe that contiguity should be preserved where possible.

This same issue arose in Councilperson’s Rakestraw’s first plan. This plan was later dropped in
favor of Plan B.

7. Compact geography

Background: Districts which are geographically compact are preferred over irregularly shaped
districts. There are statistical measures of compactness. I have not run either the Current
District Plan or Councilperson Wade’s Plan E through these measures. However, this plan will
probably result in a slightly more compact measurement than the current plan.

8. Minority Representation

Background: Here the most relevant issue is the Voting Rights Act. There are two Sections to
the Act that impact Greensboro. Section 2 of the Act (which applies to the entire country)
prohibits practices that would diminish the voting strength of minority voters. Examples of this
would be election practices that made voting difficult, etc. I don’t see where Councilperson
Wade’s Plan would interfere with the rights of minorities to participate in elections.

Section 5 of the Act requires that many jurisdictions across the country seek pre-clearance from
the US Department of Justice (or via the Courts) before making a change in their election
practices. Redistricting falls into this category and Greensboro is among the jurisdictions that
must secure pre-clearance.

The DOJ will principally be concerned with one issue; does the change make it more difficult for
minority voters to elect a minority representative than is now the case under the current
“benchmark” district plan. A plan that reduces minority voting strength is referred to as being
retrogressive.

· The benchmark plan is the Current District Plan as adopted in 2008 utilizing the 2008
population statistics. For Districts 1 and 2, the percent of non-white population in the bench
mark plan is shown below.
· Councilperson Wade’s Plan E (using 2010 population data) differs from the benchmark plan
only slightly.

Percent Non-White

2001 2008 2010 Current Proposed
District
Benchmark Districts Wade’s Plan E
1 73.5 81.7 83.2 83.1
2 74.7 77.7 78.9 78.6

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Young, Rashad
Subject: Review of Wade Redistricting Plan D
Attachments: Plan D Precinct Change Map.pdf
Per your request, I have prepared a description of the redistricting plan “D” proposed by
Councilperson Wade. In doing so, I’ve followed the same format I used in my previous overview of
other proposed redistricting plans. Maps associated with this overview are attached as .pdf files.
[Footnote… when I reference “current districts” I’m talking about the districts put in place in 2008,
not the district boundaries adopted on April 19 th ]

This plan is very similar to the current City Council district plan and involves the movement of
precinct G31 from District 3 to District 4 and the movement of precinct G56 from District 5 to District
1. The net effect of these two changes is to add population to District 4 (which is the smallest) and
remove population from District 5 (which is the largest). However it does so without changing the
boundary between Districts 4 and 5.


10%.

Councilperson Wade’s Plan D shows a closer population balance of 5.9%

Clearly Councilperson Wade’s Plan D has the advantage creating districts with a better
population balance. To achieve this end, the author moves 2 full precincts. The precinct
changing districts are shown in the attached .pdf.



Councilperson Wade’s Plan D mirrors the current district plan



· Councilperson Wade’s Plan D moves 4,583 people to a different district.

shown below:

Rolling Woods Green Valley Garden Homes Chadberry
Guilford Hills



Councilperson Wade’s Plan D divides 10 neighborhoods




· Councilperson Wade’s Plan D mirrors the current district plan



each district.

· Councilperson Wade’s Plan D mirrors the current district plan


District Plan or Councilperson Wade’s Plan D through these measures. However, this plan will
probably result in a slightly more compact measurement than the current plan.


Wade’s Plan would interfere with the rights of minorities to participate in elections.


retrogressive.

· Councilperson Wade’s Plan D (using 2010 population data) differs from the benchmark plan
only slightly.

Percent Non-White

District
Benchmark Districts Wade’s Plan D
1 73.5 81.7 83.2 82.7
2 74.7 77.7 78.9 78.9

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Wade, Trudy
Cc: Wade, Trudy
Subject: Confirmation of Redistricting Plans
Just to let you know, I passed onto Denise both of the redistricting plans (D & E) and that they have
posted the maps to the City’s website (the tables will follow). Let me know if you see where I made
any errors in moving precincts.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Wade, Trudy
Cc: Wade, Trudy
Subject: Confirmation of Redistricting Plans
Just to let you know, I passed onto Denise both of the redistricting plans (D & E) and that they have
posted the maps to the City’s website (the tables will follow). Let me know if you see where I made
any errors in moving precincts.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Davis, Debby
Subject: FW: request
Attachments: Plan E Precinct Changes.pdf
Plan E Precinct Contents.pdf
Plan E Validation Results.pdf
Plan E.pdf
Plan D Precinct Changes.pdf
Plan D Precinct Contents.pdf
Plan D Validation Results.pdf
Plan D.pdf

Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 1:20 PM
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: RE: request

Here are the tables…

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Sherman, Stephen
Subject: request
Importance: High

I have been asked to post the maps in the next hour. Please get me the tables by then.

Phone: 336.373.2002 Fax: 336.373.2117
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: RE: request
Attachments: Plan E Precinct Changes.pdf
Plan E Precinct Contents.pdf
Plan E Validation Results.pdf
Plan E.pdf
Plan D Precinct Changes.pdf
Plan D Precinct Contents.pdf
Plan D Validation Results.pdf
Plan D.pdf
Here are the tables…

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

Subject: request
Importance: High

I have been asked to post the maps in the next hour. Please get me the tables by then.

Phone: 336.373.2002 Fax: 336.373.2117
Subject: RE: Redistricting Plan #2
Thanks Steve. You may receive other calls from other members for additional plans as well. Please
continue to respond as you are. I’m sure legal will respond to the contiguity question. Rita is out
today but has access to her e-mails.

Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 11:14 AM
To: Turner, Denise
Subject: FW: Redistricting Plan #2

Following up on my last email, here is Trudy’s second plan which handles the partial precincts in a
questionable (my opinion) manner.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

Subject: Redistricting Plan #2

Per request, attached are two maps that include the partial Jefferson moves (along with G31 and G56).

I have an email into Legal to verify how they would like me to handle the partial precincts.

For future reference, as I begin to generate maps for the website and for Council meetings, I’m going
to label the first plan as “Plan D” and this plan as “Plan E.”

If I have both plans correct, please drop me an email to that effect. Thanks.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Turner, Denise
Subject: FW: Redistricting Plan #2
Date: Monday, April 25, 2011 11:14:25 AM
Plan E Precinct Changes.pdf
Following up on my last email, here is Trudy’s second plan which handles the partial precincts in a
questionable (my opinion) manner.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496






Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496





Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496





Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

Subject: FW: Redistricting Maps for Agenda
Attachments: CurrentDistrictPlanPresentationTab.pdf
RakestrawPlan2PresentationTab.pdf
BellamySmallPlan1PresentationTab.pdf
Betsey, these will be for the Council folders tonight as well, it provides an easy summary of each
plan. Steve is brining you copies.

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:17 AM
To: Young, Rashad
Subject: Redistricting Maps for Agenda

I have attached 3 .pdf files that summarize each of the redistricting plans that I have reviewed. Each
map is intended for printing on 11” x 17” (tabloid) sized paper.

I’ll print 20 copies of each and deliver them to the Clerk’s Office this morning.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Young, Rashad
Subject: Redistricting Maps for Agenda
Attachments: CurrentDistrictPlanPresentationTab.pdf
RakestrawPlan2PresentationTab.pdf
BellamySmallPlan1PresentationTab.pdf
I have attached 3 .pdf files that summarize each of the redistricting plans that I have reviewed. Each
map is intended for printing on 11” x 17” (tabloid) sized paper.

I’ll print 20 copies of each and deliver them to the Clerk’s Office this morning.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Young, Rashad
Subject: Review of Bellamy-Small Plan 1
Attachments: BellamySmallPlan1PrecinctChanges.pdf
BellamySmallPlan1.mdb.pdf
Per your request, I have prepared a summary of the redistricting plan proposed by Councilperson
Bellamy-Small. In doing so, I have followed the same format used in my previous overview of other
proposed redistricting plans. Maps associated with this overview are attached as .pdf files.

This plan is very similar to the current City Council district plan and involves only the movement of
precinct G62 from District 5 to District 4.


10%.

Councilperson Bellamy-Small’s plan shows a closer population balance of 5.3%

Clearly the Bellamy-Small plan has the advantage creating districts with better population balance.
To achieve this end, the author moves 1 full precinct. The precinct (G62) changing districts are
shown in the attached .pdf.


Background: It is an accepted practice to consider the residence of an incumbent office holder and
to draw boundaries that leave incumbents within their current district.

Councilperson Bellamy-Small’s plan mirrors the current district plan


Background: As a general principal, redistricting plans that move fewer people into a new district
are preferred over plans that relocate larger numbers of people.

· Councilperson Bellamy-Small’s Plan moves 2,199 people to a different district.

districts. Those where the entire neighborhood, or large parts of thereof, change districts are shown
below:

Oaks West Beechcroft Whispering Woods


“communities of interest” between districts. In Greensboro, communities of interest have historically
been represented by neighborhoods.

Councilperson Bellamy-Small’s plan mirrors the current district plan



Following precinct boundaries can be a challenge in municipal redistricting since annexations never
follow precinct boundaries. As a result, plans must take into account the fact that some partial
precincts will be present.

· Councilperson Bellamy-Small’s plan mirrors the current district plan


Background: Contiguous geography, frequently referred to as contiguity, is a basic requirement of
all district plans. Essentially, all areas of a district must be geographically connected. A common
rule is thumb is that a person should be able to travel to any area of a district without crossing
through another district.

As mentioned under the discussion on Honoring Political Boundaries, municipal boundaries do not
follow precinct boundaries. Historically, if different parts of the same precinct touched the City at two
different districts, parts of the precinct would be assigned, based on contiguity, to each district.

result, on the eastern side of the City, parts of the JEF1 precinct are assigned to Districts 1 and
2. Similarly, portions of the JEF2 precinct are assigned to both Districts 1 and 2.
· Councilperson Bellamy-Small’s plan mirrors the current district plan


districts. There are statistical measures of compactness. I have not run either the Current District
Plan or Council Bellamy-Small’s through these measures. However, the reassignment of precinct
G62 will probably result in a slightly less compact measurement for Councilperson Bellamy-Small’s
Plan.


Background: Here the most relevant issue is the Voting Rights Act. There are two Sections to the
Act that impact Greensboro. Section 2 of the Act (which applies to the entire country) prohibits
practices that would diminish the voting strength of minority voters. Examples of this would be
election practices that made voting difficult, etc. I don’t see where Councilperson Bellamy-Small’s
Plan would interfere with the rights of minorities to participate in elections.

Section 5 of the Act requires that many jurisdictions across the country seek pre-clearance from the
US Department of Justice (or via the Courts) before making a change in their election practices.
Redistricting falls into this category and Greensboro is among the jurisdictions that must secure pre-
clearance.

minority voters to elect a minority representative than is now the case under the current “benchmark”
district plan. A plan that reduces minority voting strength is referred to as being retrogressive.

· The benchmark plan is the Current District Plan as adopted in 2008 utilizing the 2008 population
statistics. For Districts 1 and 2, the percent of non-white population in the bench mark plan is
shown below.
· Councilperson Bellamy-Small’s Plan differs from the benchmark plan only slightly.

Percent Non-White

District
Benchmark Districts Bellamy-Small Plan
1 73.5 81.7 83.2 83.2
2 74.7 77.7 78.9 78.9

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Redistricting Plan Map Prototype
Attachments: BellamySmallPlan1PresentationTab.pdf
If you would like, I can have maps similar to the one attached for Tuesday’s Council meeting.

Also, do you need me to do anything at the Council meeting other than observe?

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Young, Rashad
Subject: Review of Rakestraw Redistricting Plan #2
Attachments: CurrentDistricts.pdf
RakestrawPlan2PrecinctChanges.pdf
Per your request, I have prepared a description of the second redistricting plan proposed by
Councilperson Rakestraw. In doing so, I’ve followed the same format I used in my previous overview
of her first plan. Maps associated with this overview are attached as .pdf files.

While the two plans submitted by the Councilperson are similar, they do differ in some important
regards. The most notable change surrounds how precincts along the eastern edge of the City are
handled.


accepted variance between the largest district and the smallest district should be no greater
that 10%.

Councilperson Rakestraw’s plan shows a closer population balance of 7.0%

Clearly the Rakestraw plan has the advantage creating districts with better population balance.
To achieve this end, the author moves 10 full precincts and one partial precinct. It should be
noted that, if a more equal population balance is desired, variances in the range of the proposed
plan can be achieved by moving a single precinct. The precincts changing districts are shown in
the attached .pdf.



Councilperson Rakestraw’s plan leaves all incumbents within their current district



· Councilperson Rakestraw’s Plan moves roughly 32,037 people to a different district.

shown below:

Ardmore Park Arlington Park Asheboro Square Benbow Park
Brice Street / College
Benjamin Benson Bluford Park College Forest
Park
Dudley Heights Eastside Park Edison Village Fox Trail
Franklin Blvd/Shirley
Garden Homes Gorrell St. Community Green Valley
Ln.
Guilford Hills Hampton Community Heath Park Hillsdale Park
Hope Valley Jonesboro / Scott Park Lincoln Heights Lindley Park
N.C A&T State
Lowdermilk Area Nocho Park Ole Asheboro
University
Piedmont Heights Poplar Ridge Rolling Roads Southside
Stonegate Crossing Willow Oaks



Councilperson Rakestraw’s plan divides 10 neighborhoods

While I have not had time to gather any empirical evidence, the division of only 10
neighborhoods does a better job of preserving communities of interest than is typically seen.




· Councilperson Rakestraw’s Plan contains several partial precincts. These are assigned to
districts based on their contiguity with each Council district

This is a significant difference from the plan that she initially submitted and will be discussed in
great detail under the topic of Contiguous Geography.



each district.

· Councilperson Rakestraw’s Plan assigns partial precincts based on their contiguity with
adjacent districts.

This represents a significant change from her earlier plan where the partial precincts were not
assigned based on contiguity.


District Plan or Council Rakestraw’s Second Plan through these measures. However, the
placement of precinct G48 will probably result in a less compact measurement for
Councilperson Rakestraw’s Plan.


Rakestraw’s Plan would interfere with the rights of minorities to participate in elections.


retrogressive.

· Councilperson Rakestraw’s Plan differs from the benchmark plan only slightly.

District Percent Non-White
2001 2008 Benchmark 2010 Current Proposed
Districts Rakestraw Plan
1 73.5 81.7 83.2 79.0
2 74.7 77.7 78.9 79.5

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: CMO
Subject: Fwd: Redistricting
Date: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:32:38 PM
Attachments: Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf
ATT00001..htm
Redistricting Agenda_4.19.11.doc
ATT00002..htm
ValidationResults.pdf
ATT00003..htm
2010DistrictAnalysisMap.pdf
ATT00004..htm
CurrentDistrictPrecinctAssignmentDetails.pdf
ATT00005..htm
PrecinctChanges.pdf
ATT00006..htm
PrecinctContents.pdf
ATT00007..htm
Sorry, I pressed send before including you.
From: "Turner, Denise" <Denise.Turner@greensboro-nc.gov>

Date: April 15, 2011 7:31:17 PM EDT
To: "Wade, Trudy" <twade2@triad.rr.com>, Bill Knight
<wknight@triad.rr.com>, "Perkins, Robbie" <rperkins@naipt.com>,
"Vaughan, Nancy" <NVaughan@triad.rr.com>, "Bellamy-Small, T.
Dianne" <Dianne.Bellamy-Small@greensboro-nc.gov>, Jim Kee
<jimkee2009@yahoo.com>, Danny Thompson
<dannythompson@triad.rr.com>, "Ms. Mary Rakestraw"
<mary_rakestraw@bellsouth.net>, Zack Matheny
<ZMatheny@bellpartnersinc.com>
Subject: Redistricting
Mayor and Council Members:
The attached documents are the materials associated with a redistricting

plan proposal recommended by Councilmember Rakestraw. These same
items are included in the packet delivered this evening by carrier along
with the solid waste disposal information. The redistricting proposal has
been placed on the Council Agenda for next Tuesday. In addition a news
release was sent to the media and these materials were posted on the
city's web-site. There were outstanding media and public records
requests for these items. Please let me know if you encounter problems
viewing any of these items.
Denise
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link

attachments:
Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf
PrecinctChanges.pdf
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs

may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file
attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to
determine how attachments are handled.
To: CMO
ATT00001..htm
ATT00002..htm
ATT00003..htm
ATT00004..htm
ATT00005..htm
PrecinctChanges.pdf
ATT00006..htm
ATT00007..htm


Denise

attachments:
Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf
PrecinctChanges.pdf

To: CMO
ATT00001..htm
ATT00002..htm
ATT00003..htm
ATT00004..htm
ATT00005..htm
PrecinctChanges.pdf
ATT00006..htm
ATT00007..htm


Denise

attachments:
Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf
PrecinctChanges.pdf

To: CMO
ATT00001..htm
ATT00002..htm
ATT00003..htm
ATT00004..htm
ATT00005..htm
PrecinctChanges.pdf
ATT00006..htm
ATT00007..htm


Denise

attachments:
Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf
PrecinctChanges.pdf

To: CMO
ATT00001..htm
ATT00002..htm
ATT00003..htm
ATT00004..htm
ATT00005..htm
PrecinctChanges.pdf
ATT00006..htm
ATT00007..htm


Denise

attachments:
Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf
PrecinctChanges.pdf

To: CMO
ATT00001..htm
ATT00002..htm
ATT00003..htm
ATT00004..htm
ATT00005..htm
PrecinctChanges.pdf
ATT00006..htm
ATT00007..htm


Denise

attachments:
Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf
PrecinctChanges.pdf

To: CMO
ATT00001..htm
ATT00002..htm
ATT00003..htm
ATT00004..htm
ATT00005..htm
PrecinctChanges.pdf
ATT00006..htm
ATT00007..htm


Denise

attachments:
Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf
PrecinctChanges.pdf

To: CMO
ATT00001..htm
ATT00002..htm
ATT00003..htm
ATT00004..htm
ATT00005..htm
PrecinctChanges.pdf
ATT00006..htm
ATT00007..htm


Denise

attachments:
Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf
PrecinctChanges.pdf

To: Wade, Trudy; Bill Knight; Perkins, Robbie; Vaughan, Nancy; Bellamy-Small, T. Dianne; Jim Kee; Danny
Thompson; Ms. Mary Rakestraw; Zack Matheny
ATT00001..txt
ATT00002..txt
ATT00003..txt
ATT00004..txt
ATT00005..txt
PrecinctChanges.pdf
ATT00006..txt
ATT00007..txt
The attached documents are the materials associated with a redistricting plan proposal recommended by
Councilmember Rakestraw. These same items are included in the packet delivered this evening by
carrier along with the solid waste disposal information. The redistricting proposal has been placed on
the Council Agenda for next Tuesday. In addition a news release was sent to the media and these
materials were posted on the city's web-site. There were outstanding media and public records requests
for these items. Please let me know if you encounter problems viewing any of these items.
Denise
> The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
>
> Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf
> Redistricting Agenda_4.19.11.doc
> ValidationResults.pdf
> 2010DistrictAnalysisMap.pdf
> CurrentDistrictPrecinctAssignmentDetails.pdf
> PrecinctChanges.pdf
> PrecinctContents.pdf
>
>
> Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain
types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are
handled.
To: Wade, Trudy; Bill Knight; Perkins, Robbie; Vaughan, Nancy; Bellamy-Small, T. Dianne; Jim Kee; Danny
Thompson; Ms. Mary Rakestraw; Zack Matheny
ATT00001..txt
ATT00002..txt
ATT00003..txt
ATT00004..txt
ATT00005..txt
PrecinctChanges.pdf
ATT00006..txt
ATT00007..txt
The attached documents are the materials associated with a redistricting plan proposal recommended by
Councilmember Rakestraw. These same items are included in the packet delivered this evening by
carrier along with the solid waste disposal information. The redistricting proposal has been placed on
the Council Agenda for next Tuesday. In addition a news release was sent to the media and these
materials were posted on the city's web-site. There were outstanding media and public records requests
for these items. Please let me know if you encounter problems viewing any of these items.
Denise
> The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
>
> Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf
> Redistricting Agenda_4.19.11.doc
> ValidationResults.pdf
> 2010DistrictAnalysisMap.pdf
> CurrentDistrictPrecinctAssignmentDetails.pdf
> PrecinctChanges.pdf
> PrecinctContents.pdf
>
>
> Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain
handled.
To: Davis, Debby
Subject: Emailing: Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf, Redistricting Agenda_4.19.11.doc, ValidationResults.pdf,
2010DistrictAnalysisMap.pdf, CurrentDistrictPrecinctAssignmentDetails.pdf, PrecinctChanges.pdf,
PrecinctChanges.pdf

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf
PrecinctChanges.pdf
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain
handled.
To: Davis, Debby
Subject: Emailing: Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf, Redistricting Agenda_4.19.11.doc, ValidationResults.pdf,
2010DistrictAnalysisMap.pdf, CurrentDistrictPrecinctAssignmentDetails.pdf, PrecinctChanges.pdf,
PrecinctChanges.pdf

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Rakestraw 2.mdb.pdf
PrecinctChanges.pdf
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain
handled.
To: Young, Rashad
Date: Friday, April 15, 2011 2:41:13 AM
Rakestraw04-13-2011 (A).pdf
RakestrawPlanPrecinctChanges.pdf
Per your request, I have prepared a description of the redistricting plan proposed by Councilperson
Rakestraw. I have done this by drawing comparisons between the current and proposed plans.
Maps of each plan are attached as .pdf files.

Please note that this is based on the plan originally provided by the Councilperson. After I left work,
I learned that an additional plan was provided to the City Manager’s Office. I am off on Friday and
will examine that plan Monday.

that 10%.

Clearly the Rakestraw plan has the advantage creating districts with better
population balance. To achieve this end, the author moves 11 full precincts and
five partial precincts. It should be noted that, if a more equal population balance
is desired, variances in the range of the proposed plan can be achieved by moving
a single precinct. The precincts changing districts are shown in the attached .pdf.
I am a bit concerned because when I load the data given to me it does not
exactly match the map. The numbers above are based on the map provided. I
will need to confirm a couple of details with the plan’s author.

Background: It is and accepted practice to consider the residence of an incumbent office holder




· Councilperson Rakestraw’s Plan moves roughly 35,851 people to a different

district.







· The Current District Plan contains several partial precincts. These are assigned
to districts based on their contiguity with each Council district
· Councilperson Rakestraw’s Plan contains the same number of partial precincts.

However these are assigned to districts without regard to their contiguity with
Council districts.

This is a significant difference in the plans and will be discussed in great detail under the topic of
Contiguous Geography.



each district.

contiguous.

· The Current District Plan assigns partial precincts to districts based on their
contiguity. As a result, on the eastern side of the City, parts of the JEF1
precinct are assigned to Districts 1 and 2. Similarly, portions of the JEF2
precinct are assigned to both Districts 1 and 2.
· Councilperson Rakestraw’s Plan assigns all of precinct JEF1 and all of JEF2 are
assigned to District 2 without regard to contiguity.

an opinion from the State Attorney General’s Office to the contrary. The City Attorney and I
have a conference call planned with the Attorney General’s Office on Monday.


District Plan or Council Rakestraw’s Plan through these measures. However, the use of point
contiguity will probably result in a less compact measurement for Councilperson Rakestraw’s
Plan.



retrogressive.

· The benchmark plan is the Current District Plan as adopted in 2008 utilizing
the 2008 population statistics. For Districts 1 and 2, the percent of non-white
population in the bench mark plan is shown below.

1 73.5 81.7 83.2 80.0
2 74.7 77.7 78.9 78.5

To: Young, Rashad
Date: Friday, April 15, 2011 2:41:00 AM
Rakestraw04-13-2011 (A).pdf
RakestrawPlanPrecinctChanges.pdf
Per your request, I have prepared a description of the redistricting plan proposed by Councilperson
Rakestraw. I have done this by drawing comparisons between the current and proposed plans.
Maps of each plan are attached as .pdf files.

Please note that this is based on the plan originally provided by the Councilperson. After I left work,
I learned that an additional plan was provided to the City Manager’s Office. I am off on Friday and
will examine that plan Monday.

that 10%.

Clearly the Rakestraw plan has the advantage creating districts with better
population balance. To achieve this end, the author moves 11 full precincts and
five partial precincts. It should be noted that, if a more equal population balance
is desired, variances in the range of the proposed plan can be achieved by moving
a single precinct. The precincts changing districts are shown in the attached .pdf.
I am a bit concerned because when I load the data given to me it does not
exactly match the map. The numbers above are based on the map provided. I
will need to confirm a couple of details with the plan’s author.

Background: It is and accepted practice to consider the residence of an incumbent office holder




· Councilperson Rakestraw’s Plan moves roughly 35,851 people to a different

district.







· The Current District Plan contains several partial precincts. These are assigned
to districts based on their contiguity with each Council district
· Councilperson Rakestraw’s Plan contains the same number of partial precincts.

However these are assigned to districts without regard to their contiguity with
Council districts.

This is a significant difference in the plans and will be discussed in great detail under the topic of
Contiguous Geography.



each district.

contiguous.

· The Current District Plan assigns partial precincts to districts based on their
contiguity. As a result, on the eastern side of the City, parts of the JEF1
precinct are assigned to Districts 1 and 2. Similarly, portions of the JEF2
precinct are assigned to both Districts 1 and 2.
· Councilperson Rakestraw’s Plan assigns all of precinct JEF1 and all of JEF2 are
assigned to District 2 without regard to contiguity.

an opinion from the State Attorney General’s Office to the contrary. The City Attorney and I
have a conference call planned with the Attorney General’s Office on Monday.


District Plan or Council Rakestraw’s Plan through these measures. However, the use of point
contiguity will probably result in a less compact measurement for Councilperson Rakestraw’s
Plan.



retrogressive.

· The benchmark plan is the Current District Plan as adopted in 2008 utilizing
the 2008 population statistics. For Districts 1 and 2, the percent of non-white
population in the bench mark plan is shown below.

1 73.5 81.7 83.2 80.0
2 74.7 77.7 78.9 78.5

To: Turner, Denise
Cc: Danish, Julia
Subject: Redistricting Loose Ends
Attachments: FAQ_Final.docx
VotingRightsActQuestions.docx
Attached are two documents.

1. Redistricting FAQ’s. I consider this document ready to go for posting to the website or for other
purposes. It includes information collected today regarding DOJ aspects of preclearance.

2. Voting Rights Act Questions. I consider this a final draft of my response to Councilperson
Bellamy-Small’s questions regarding the Voting Rights Act. It also includes information that we
collected today. It took out some of the detail that was in the earlier version so it’s at a pretty
high level, but if there is time, it might be advantageous to have someone in Legal look this
over.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

From: Young, Rashad
To: McCollough, Mary
Subject: Fwd: Redistricting FAQ"s
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 8:13:55 PM
Attachments: FAQ_Draft.docx
ATT00001..htm
Pls print for me
Sent from my iPhone

Date: March 15, 2011 7:20:25 PM EDT
To: "Danish, Julia" <Julia.Danish@greensboro-nc.gov>, "Young, Rashad"
<Rashad.Young@greensboro-nc.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Redistricting FAQ's
Rita, could you have someone review these responses. Not all need legal
attention but some do. Rashad, i would like your input as to your comfort
level with including all of these responses, some questions which are
valid may be out of our bailiwick. We currently have info posted on-
line: http://www.greensboro-
nc.gov/citygovernment/council/redistricting.htm regarding redistricting
which includes the presentation used Monday, a fact-sheet and district
map. The attached FAQ respond to common questions raised at
Monday's meeting and at the Neighborhood Congress meeting held
Saturday.
We will post the FAQ on-line once cleared. Don't worry about
grammatical errors, we are editing. Thanks.
From: "Sherman, Stephen" <Stephen.Sherman@greensboro-

nc.gov>
To: "Turner, Denise" <Denise.Turner@greensboro-nc.gov>
Cc: "Gray, Donna" <Donna.Gray@greensboro-nc.gov>,
"Justice, Cathy - Public Affairs" <Cathy.Justice@greensboro-
nc.gov>
Subject: RE: Redistricting FAQ's
I’ve updated the FAQ sheet to include voter registration data and changes
in the two majority-minority districts over past three redistricting efforts.
The only thing missing are the two legal questions.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:36 AM
To: Turner, Denise
Cc: Gray, Donna; Justice, Cathy - Public Affairs
Subject: Redistricting FAQ's

Based on what I heard at the Neighborhood Congress on Saturday
and the Redistricting meeting last night, I’ve come up with a list of
frequently asked questions.
These might make a good addition to the City’s web page on

redistricting. This is just a draft and you’ll see where I need to
collect some additional voter registration data and get some input
from Legal before the sheet is complete.
Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


From: Young, Rashad
ATT00001..htm
Pls print for me
Sent from my iPhone

To: "Danish, Julia" <Julia.Danish@greensboro-nc.gov>, "Young, Rashad"
<Rashad.Young@greensboro-nc.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Redistricting FAQ's
Rita, could you have someone review these responses. Not all need legal
attention but some do. Rashad, i would like your input as to your comfort
level with including all of these responses, some questions which are
valid may be out of our bailiwick. We currently have info posted on-
line: http://www.greensboro-
nc.gov/citygovernment/council/redistricting.htm regarding redistricting
which includes the presentation used Monday, a fact-sheet and district
map. The attached FAQ respond to common questions raised at
Monday's meeting and at the Neighborhood Congress meeting held
Saturday.
We will post the FAQ on-line once cleared. Don't worry about
grammatical errors, we are editing. Thanks.
From: "Sherman, Stephen" <Stephen.Sherman@greensboro-

nc.gov>
Cc: "Gray, Donna" <Donna.Gray@greensboro-nc.gov>,
"Justice, Cathy - Public Affairs" <Cathy.Justice@greensboro-
nc.gov>
I’ve updated the FAQ sheet to include voter registration data and changes
in the two majority-minority districts over past three redistricting efforts.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


To: Turner, Denise

Based on what I heard at the Neighborhood Congress on Saturday
and the Redistricting meeting last night, I’ve come up with a list of
frequently asked questions.
These might make a good addition to the City’s web page on

redistricting. This is just a draft and you’ll see where I need to
collect some additional voter registration data and get some input
from Legal before the sheet is complete.
Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


To: Danish, Julia; Young, Rashad
ATT00001..htm
Rita, could you have someone review these responses. Not all need legal attention
but some do. Rashad, i would like your input as to your comfort level with including
all of these responses, some questions which are valid may be out of our bailiwick.
We currently have info posted on-line: http://www.greensboro-
nc.gov/citygovernment/council/redistricting.htm regarding redistricting which includes
the presentation used Monday, a fact-sheet and district map. The attached FAQ
respond to common questions raised at Monday's meeting and at the Neighborhood
Congress meeting held Saturday.
We will post the FAQ on-line once cleared. Don't worry about grammatical errors,
we are editing. Thanks.
From: "Sherman, Stephen" <Stephen.Sherman@greensboro-nc.gov>

Cc: "Gray, Donna" <Donna.Gray@greensboro-nc.gov>, "Justice, Cathy -
Public Affairs" <Cathy.Justice@greensboro-nc.gov>
I’ve updated the FAQ sheet to include voter registration data and changes in the two
majority-minority districts over past three redistricting efforts.
Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


To: Turner, Denise

Based on what I heard at the Neighborhood Congress on Saturday and the
Redistricting meeting last night, I’ve come up with a list of frequently asked
questions.
These might make a good addition to the City’s web page on redistricting. This is
just a draft and you’ll see where I need to collect some additional voter
registration data and get some input from Legal before the sheet is complete.
Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


To: Turner, Denise
Subject: RE: Redistricting FAQ"s
I’ve updated the FAQ sheet to include voter registration data and changes in the two majority-minority
districts over past three redistricting efforts.


Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Turner, Denise

Based on what I heard at the Neighborhood Congress on Saturday and the Redistricting
meeting last night, I’ve come up with a list of frequently asked questions.

These might make a good addition to the City’s web page on redistricting. This is just a draft
and you’ll see where I need to collect some additional voter registration data and get some
input from Legal before the sheet is complete.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Turner, Denise


Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Turner, Denise



Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Turner, Denise


Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Turner, Denise



Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Turner, Denise
Subject: Redistricting FAQ"s
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:36:00 AM
Based on what I heard at the Neighborhood Congress on Saturday and the Redistricting meeting last
night, I’ve come up with a list of frequently asked questions.

These might make a good addition to the City’s web page on redistricting. This is just a draft and you’ll
see where I need to collect some additional voter registration data and get some input from Legal
before the sheet is complete.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Turner, Denise


Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Turner, Denise


Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

From: Zack Matheny
To: Young, Rashad; Perkins, Robbie; Turner, Denise
Cc: Bill Knight; Vaughan, Nancy; Danny Thompson; Jim Kee; Bellamy-Small, T. Dianne; Wade, Trudy; Rakestraw,
Mary
Subject: RE: Census/Redistricting
Attachments: image001.png
What is the point of this request other than we are being open and transparent with our
community and abiding by the super majority of City Council?

Rashad, this is unfortunate that you have your time being wasted.
From: Young, Rashad [mailto:Rashad.Young@greensboro-nc.gov]

To: Perkins, Robbie
Cc: Bill Knight; Vaughan, Nancy; Danny Thompson; Jim Kee; Bellamy-Small, T. Dianne; Zack Matheny;
Wade, Trudy; Rakestraw, Mary
Subject: Fwd: Census/Redistricting

Robbie,

Per your request.
From: Zack Matheny <ZMatheny@bellpartnersinc.com>

Date: March 2, 2011 5:51:23 PM EST
To: "Sherman, Stephen" <Stephen.Sherman@greensboro-nc.gov>
Subject: Census/Redistricting
Steve – I understand the census information may be in. As the

appointed City Council liaison, I request that you do not show
anyone other than you and me how the census interacts with our
redistricting, if indeed the a re-drawing is even necessary. ( T**
The census data is of course open as a public document and anyone
can obtain. I am simply asking for just the maps to be kept private
until public comment has been heard**) Unfortunately, this has
become a hot topic and we need to be focused on the City, the
census, precincts etc, This will allow you and I to fulfill our duty.

By copy to Denise, we need to schedule a “town hall” meeting to
discuss the census and ask for feedback. I am thinking March 15th
after the work session, say 5:30 pm in council chambers. This will
be a time for folks to come ask about the possible redistricting etc.

Thoughts??

Zack Matheny
Director

Bell Partners Inc.
300 N. Greene Street, Ste. 1000 | Greensboro, NC 27401
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978
email zmatheny@bellpartnersinc.com
web www.BellPartnersInc.com

=======================================================
third parties.

From: Zack Matheny
Mary


To: Perkins, Robbie

Robbie,

Per your request.




Thoughts??

Zack Matheny
Director

Bell Partners Inc.
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

=======================================================
third parties.

From: Zack Matheny
Mary


To: Perkins, Robbie

Robbie,

Per your request.




Thoughts??

Zack Matheny
Director

Bell Partners Inc.
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

=======================================================
third parties.

From: Young, Rashad
Attachments: BellPrtnrsLogo_FNLCBell_1ClrM.png
Forward this to Mary R outside email

Address. I can't seem to find it in my contacts.
Sent from my iPhone

Date: March 8, 2011 8:55:37 AM EST
To: "Perkins, Robbie" <rperkins@naipt.com>
Cc: Bill Knight <wknight@triad.rr.com>, "Vaughan, Nancy"
<NVaughan@triad.rr.com>, Danny Thompson
<dannythompson@triad.rr.com>, Jim Kee <jimkee2009@yahoo.com>,
"Bellamy-Small, T. Dianne" <Dianne.Bellamy-Small@greensboro-nc.gov>,
Zack Matheny <ZMatheny@bellpartnersinc.com>, "Wade, Trudy"
<twade2@triad.rr.com>, "Rakestraw, Mary"
<mary.rakestraw@greensboro-nc.gov>
Robbie,
Per your request.
From: Zack Matheny

To: "Sherman, Stephen"
<Stephen.Sherman@greensboro-nc.gov>
Cc: "Turner, Denise" <Denise.Turner@greensboro-
nc.gov>
Steve – I understand the census information may be in.

As the appointed City Council liaison, I request that you
do not show anyone other than you and me how the
census interacts with our redistricting, if indeed the a re-
drawing is even necessary. ( T** The census data is of
course open as a public document and anyone can
obtain. I am simply asking for just the maps to be kept
private until public comment has been heard**)
Unfortunately, this has become a hot topic and we need
to be focused on the City, the census, precincts etc, This
will allow you and I to fulfill our duty.
By copy to Denise, we need to schedule a “town hall”

meeting to discuss the census and ask for feedback. I
am thinking March 15th after the work session, say 5:30
pm in council chambers. This will be a time for folks to
come ask about the possible redistricting etc.
Thoughts??
Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.
300 N. Greene Street, Ste. 1000 | Greensboro, NC

27401
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

From: Young, Rashad
Forward this to Mary R outside email

Address. I can't seem to find it in my contacts.
Sent from my iPhone

Date: March 8, 2011 8:55:37 AM EST
To: "Perkins, Robbie" <rperkins@naipt.com>
Cc: Bill Knight <wknight@triad.rr.com>, "Vaughan, Nancy"
<NVaughan@triad.rr.com>, Danny Thompson
<dannythompson@triad.rr.com>, Jim Kee <jimkee2009@yahoo.com>,
"Bellamy-Small, T. Dianne" <Dianne.Bellamy-Small@greensboro-nc.gov>,
Zack Matheny <ZMatheny@bellpartnersinc.com>, "Wade, Trudy"
<twade2@triad.rr.com>, "Rakestraw, Mary"
<mary.rakestraw@greensboro-nc.gov>
Robbie,
Per your request.
From: Zack Matheny

To: "Sherman, Stephen"
<Stephen.Sherman@greensboro-nc.gov>
Cc: "Turner, Denise" <Denise.Turner@greensboro-
nc.gov>
Steve – I understand the census information may be in.

As the appointed City Council liaison, I request that you
do not show anyone other than you and me how the
census interacts with our redistricting, if indeed the a re-
drawing is even necessary. ( T** The census data is of
course open as a public document and anyone can
obtain. I am simply asking for just the maps to be kept
private until public comment has been heard**)
Unfortunately, this has become a hot topic and we need
to be focused on the City, the census, precincts etc, This
will allow you and I to fulfill our duty.
By copy to Denise, we need to schedule a “town hall”

meeting to discuss the census and ask for feedback. I
am thinking March 15th after the work session, say 5:30
pm in council chambers. This will be a time for folks to
come ask about the possible redistricting etc.
Thoughts??
Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.
300 N. Greene Street, Ste. 1000 | Greensboro, NC

27401
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

From: Young, Rashad
To: Perkins, Robbie
Cc: Bill Knight; Vaughan, Nancy; Danny Thompson; Jim Kee; Bellamy-Small, T. Dianne; Zack Matheny; Wade,
Trudy; Rakestraw, Mary
Robbie,
Per your request.

To: "Sherman, Stephen" <Stephen.Sherman@greensboro-
nc.gov>


Thoughts??

Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

From: Young, Rashad
To: Perkins, Robbie
Robbie,
Per your request.

nc.gov>


Thoughts??

Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

From: Young, Rashad
To: Perkins, Robbie
Robbie,
Per your request.

nc.gov>


Thoughts??

Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

To: Young, Rashad
Date: Monday, March 07, 2011 11:27:47 PM

Steve – I understand the census information may be in. As the appointed City
Council liaison, I request that you do not show anyone other than you and me
how the census interacts with our redistricting, if indeed the a re-drawing is even
necessary. ( T** The census data is of course open as a public document and
anyone can obtain. I am simply asking for just the maps to be kept private until
public comment has been heard**) Unfortunately, this has become a hot topic
and we need to be focused on the City, the census, precincts etc, This will allow
you and I to fulfill our duty.
By copy to Denise, we need to schedule a “town hall” meeting to discuss the

census and ask for feedback. I am thinking March 15th after the work session,
say 5:30 pm in council chambers. This will be a time for folks to come ask
about the possible redistricting etc.
Thoughts??
Zack Matheny
Director

Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

To: Zack Matheny
Cc: Turner, Denise
Subject: Redistricting Background Information
Date: Monday, March 07, 2011 10:49:51 AM
Attachments: NCLGISA2010.pdf
Denise suggested that I share with you the PowerPoint that I used when speaking at a recent
conference. The first half talks about redistricting principals. The second half is a bit technical and
talks about Census data, software tools, etc.

It will need some work, but maybe some derivative of the first half could be used to communicate the
basics of redistricting to the public.

The attachment is not the slideshow itself. I exported it to a .pdf file (to shrink down the graphics), but
I think you’ll get the general outline of the presentation.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

To: Zack Matheny
Cc: Turner, Denise
Subject: Redistricting Background Information
Attachments: NCLGISA2010.pdf
Denise suggested that I share with you the PowerPoint that I used when speaking at a recent
conference. The first half talks about redistricting principals. The second half is a bit technical and
talks about Census data, software tools, etc.

It will need some work, but maybe some derivative of the first half could be used to communicate the
basics of redistricting to the public.

The attachment is not the slideshow itself. I exported it to a .pdf file (to shrink down the graphics), but
I think you’ll get the general outline of the presentation.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

Subject: RE: Redistricting
Thanks. Will you be able to turn that power point into a presentation and fact sheet for Zack’s
public meeting and the city’s web-site? If it is too mundane or complicated, we’ll just do the fact-
sheet. This is something you and Zack should discuss as well in terms of how to present the
information. I’ll make the communication staff available to assist where needed.

Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 10:24 AM
To: Turner, Denise

While I’m meeting with Zack on Tuesday, I’ll also discuss the DOJ and other redistricting practices (per
your earlier e-mail request). I have a PowerPoint on this from a conference where I spoke so I can
use this to gather my talking points.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


Thanks Steve.

To: Zack Matheny
Cc: Turner, Denise

Tuesday works for me. However, please don’t be disappointed if I don’t have numbers ready
for you by tomorrow. My first crack at the data was Thursday. Before I can run it through the
redistricting software I’ll need to:

· Prepare the data for use. The population data will come to us organized by voter
precinct. Since Greensboro cuts through multiple precincts, I will need to extract out,
on a block-by-block basis, the portions of precincts (and their population) that fall
within Greensboro;

· I’d like to do some final testing with the real data. To date, I have been testing with
data from the 2000 Census, but I’ll need to make sure that there are no quirks in the
2010 data; and,

· Lastly, while I don’t need this immediately, I’ll need to develop some basic instructions
on how to load and use the software. Since I anticipated that Councilpersons and/or
others would request the software, I have built in some extensive validation rules that
should be explained. However, I didn’t feel it was a wise use of my time to develop
user instructions unless there was an actual request for the application. Now that I
have two requests, I’ll need to do develop the user guide. I worked on it over the
weekend, but it’s not ready for distribution.

If that I don’t run into any roadblocks, I think it’s safe to assume that I can give you a definitive
picture within the next 4 to 5 days.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

From: Zack Matheny [mailto:ZMatheny@bellpartnersinc.com]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 4:35 PM
To: Turner, Denise; Sherman, Stephen

Steve, lets plan on meeting Tuesday afternoon, how about 3:00
Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

From: Turner, Denise [mailto:Denise.Turner@greensboro-nc.gov]

To: Sherman, Stephen; Zack Matheny

Steve, it may help if you provide Zack with an outline of the DOJ restrictions
regarding redistricting in a state such as ours which requires their approval.

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 11:22 AM
To: Zack Matheny

No, I do not know of anything that is unique to Greensboro (other than having five
districts).

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

Subject: FW: Redistricting

Steve – do you know of anything?

From: Zack Matheny

To: 'Danish, Julia'; 'Turner, Denise'

Does the city have guidelines in any form as it relates to redistricting
or district maps in general?
Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

=======================================================
third parties.
To: Turner, Denise
While I’m meeting with Zack on Tuesday, I’ll also discuss the DOJ and other redistricting practices (per
your earlier e-mail request). I have a PowerPoint on this from a conference where I spoke so I can
use this to gather my talking points.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


Thanks Steve.

To: Zack Matheny
Cc: Turner, Denise

Tuesday works for me. However, please don’t be disappointed if I don’t have numbers ready
for you by tomorrow. My first crack at the data was Thursday. Before I can run it through the
redistricting software I’ll need to:

· Prepare the data for use. The population data will come to us organized by voter
precinct. Since Greensboro cuts through multiple precincts, I will need to extract out,
on a block-by-block basis, the portions of precincts (and their population) that fall
within Greensboro;

· I’d like to do some final testing with the real data. To date, I have been testing with
data from the 2000 Census, but I’ll need to make sure that there are no quirks in the
2010 data; and,

· Lastly, while I don’t need this immediately, I’ll need to develop some basic instructions
on how to load and use the software. Since I anticipated that Councilpersons and/or
others would request the software, I have built in some extensive validation rules that
should be explained. However, I didn’t feel it was a wise use of my time to develop
user instructions unless there was an actual request for the application. Now that I
have two requests, I’ll need to do develop the user guide. I worked on it over the
weekend, but it’s not ready for distribution.

If that I don’t run into any roadblocks, I think it’s safe to assume that I can give you a definitive
picture within the next 4 to 5 days.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978



Steve, it may help if you provide Zack with an outline of the DOJ restrictions
regarding redistricting in a state such as ours which requires their approval.

To: Zack Matheny

No, I do not know of anything that is unique to Greensboro (other than having five
districts).

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496



From: Zack Matheny


Does the city have guidelines in any form as it relates to redistricting
or district maps in general?
Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

=======================================================
third parties.
From: Zack Matheny
Cc: Turner, Denise
Perfect, thank you Steve,

Zack Matheny
Director

Bell Partners Inc.
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

From: Sherman, Stephen [mailto:Stephen.Sherman@greensboro-nc.gov]
To: Zack Matheny
Cc: Turner, Denise

Tuesday works for me. However, please don’t be disappointed if I don’t have numbers ready for you
by tomorrow. My first crack at the data was Thursday. Before I can run it through the redistricting
software I’ll need to:

· Prepare the data for use. The population data will come to us organized by voter precinct.
Since Greensboro cuts through multiple precincts, I will need to extract out, on a block-by-
block basis, the portions of precincts (and their population) that fall within Greensboro;

· I’d like to do some final testing with the real data. To date, I have been testing with data from
the 2000 Census, but I’ll need to make sure that there are no quirks in the 2010 data; and,

· Lastly, while I don’t need this immediately, I’ll need to develop some basic instructions on how
to load and use the software. Since I anticipated that Councilpersons and/or others would
request the software, I have built in some extensive validation rules that should be explained.
However, I didn’t feel it was a wise use of my time to develop user instructions unless there
was an actual request for the application. Now that I have two requests, I’ll need to do
develop the user guide. I worked on it over the weekend, but it’s not ready for distribution.

If that I don’t run into any roadblocks, I think it’s safe to assume that I can give you a definitive picture
within the next 4 to 5 days.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496



Zack Matheny
Director

Bell Partners Inc.
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978


Steve, it may help if you provide Zack with an outline of the DOJ restrictions regarding
redistricting in a state such as ours which requires their approval.

To: Zack Matheny

No, I do not know of anything that is unique to Greensboro (other than having five districts).

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496



From: Zack Matheny

Does the city have guidelines in any form as it relates to redistricting or
district maps in general?

Zack Matheny
Director

Bell Partners Inc.
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

=======================================================
third parties.

=======================================================
third parties.

Thanks Steve.

To: Zack Matheny
Cc: Turner, Denise






Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978




To: Zack Matheny


Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496



From: Zack Matheny


Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

=======================================================
third parties.
Thanks Steve.

To: Zack Matheny
Cc: Turner, Denise






Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978




To: Zack Matheny


Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496



From: Zack Matheny


Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

=======================================================
third parties.
To: Zack Matheny
Cc: Turner, Denise





Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978




To: Zack Matheny


Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496



From: Zack Matheny


Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

=======================================================
third parties.
To: Zack Matheny
Cc: Turner, Denise





Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978




To: Zack Matheny


Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496



From: Zack Matheny


Zack Matheny
Director
Bell Partners Inc.
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

=======================================================
third parties.
From: Zack Matheny
To: Bellamy-Small, T. Dianne; Perkins, Robbie; Jim Kee; Vaughan, Nancy; wknight@triad.rr.com; Wade, Trudy;
Danny Thompson; Rakestraw, Mary
Cc: Turner, Denise; Young, Rashad
Subject: Redistricting Community Meeting
Date: Sunday, March 06, 2011 1:48:57 PM
Attachments: RedistrictMtg_Press notice.docx
Fellow Council members,

As part of the overall redistricting strategy you placed in my responsibility, I have arranged
to host a community meeting next Monday evening (see attached) in hopes to answer any
questions about the process the citizens of Greensboro may have. This will be a public
meeting and follows the open meeting rules so there is no conflict if you would like to
attend.

The plan would be to give those that show up a brief overall synopsis of what causes a
potential redistricting, the steps we will take in reviewing the data, the matrix in which we
review the data and correlate them with the overall city maps, and to answer any questions
that may come up.

This is the first time that the City of Greensboro has ever held an open forum for redistricting
questions and should be a good example of open and transparent governing.

As a further FYI, I am going to attend the Neighborhood Congress meeting this coming
Saturday to hold a smaller meeting with that group in an effort to remain open and
transparent as well.

Please, advise if you have any questions or comments and I thank you for the trust you placed
in me in being the City Council liaison for this important task.

Zack Matheny
City Council District 3

Subject: Re: Census/Redistricting
Date: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:39:17 AM
Yes, I'll call you around 10:30/11am. I'm in the manager's mtg
On Mar 3, 2011, at 9:22 AM, "Sherman, Stephen" <Stephen.Sherman@greensboro-

nc.gov> wrote:
Can we talk briefly about this. I’m free all day.
Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496


Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 7:11 PM
To: Zack Matheny; Sherman, Stephen
Steve, Zack and I are talking by phone as well, I'll follow-up with
you in the morning.

Zack Matheny <ZMatheny@bellpartnersinc.com> wrote:

Steve – I understand the census information may be in. As the appointed

City Council liaison, I request that you do not show anyone other than
you and me how the census interacts with our redistricting, if indeed the a
re-drawing is even necessary. ( T** The census data is of course open as
a public document and anyone can obtain. I am simply asking for just
the maps to be kept private until public comment has been heard**)
Unfortunately, this has become a hot topic and we need to be focused on
the City, the census, precincts etc, This will allow you and I to fulfill our
duty.
By copy to Denise, we need to schedule a “town hall” meeting to discuss

the census and ask for feedback. I am thinking March 15th after the work
session, say 5:30 pm in council chambers. This will be a time for folks
to come ask about the possible redistricting etc.
Thoughts??
Zack Matheny
Director
<image001.png>

Bell Partners Inc.

phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

To: Turner, Denise
Date: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:22:15 AM
Can we talk briefly about this. I’m free all day.

Office: 336.373.4503 | Fax: 336.335.6496

Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 7:11 PM

Steve, Zack and I are talking by phone as well, I'll follow-up with you in the morning.


Steve – I understand the census information may be in. As the appointed City
Council liaison, I request that you do not show anyone other than you and me how the
census interacts with our redistricting, if indeed the a re-drawing is even necessary. (
T** The census data is of course open as a public document and anyone can obtain. I
am simply asking for just the maps to be kept private until public comment has been
heard**) Unfortunately, this has become a hot topic and we need to be focused on the
City, the census, precincts etc, This will allow you and I to fulfill our duty.

By copy to Denise, we need to schedule a “town hall” meeting to discuss the census
and ask for feedback. I am thinking March 15th after the work session, say 5:30 pm
in council chambers. This will be a time for folks to come ask about the possible
redistricting etc.

Thoughts??

Zack Matheny
Director

Bell Partners Inc.
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

To: Young, Rashad
Date: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 7:11:52 PM
FYI-I'll follow-up with you in the morning with next steps.
Steve – I understand the census information may be in. As the appointed City Council
liaison, I request that you do not show anyone other than you and me how the census
interacts with our redistricting, if indeed the a re-drawing is even necessary. ( T** The
census data is of course open as a public document and anyone can obtain. I am simply
asking for just the maps to be kept private until public comment has been heard**)
Unfortunately, this has become a hot topic and we need to be focused on the City, the census,
precincts etc, This will allow you and I to fulfill our duty.

By copy to Denise, we need to schedule a “town hall” meeting to discuss the census and ask
for feedback. I am thinking March 15th after the work session, say 5:30 pm in council
chambers. This will be a time for folks to come ask about the possible redistricting etc.

Thoughts??

Zack Matheny
Director

Bell Partners Inc.
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978



Thoughts??

Zack Matheny
Director

Bell Partners Inc.
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978



Thoughts??

Zack Matheny
Director

Bell Partners Inc.
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

From: Zack Matheny
Cc: Turner, Denise


Thoughts??

Zack Matheny
Director

Bell Partners Inc.
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

From: Zack Matheny
Cc: Turner, Denise


Thoughts??

Zack Matheny
Director

Bell Partners Inc.
phone 336.232.1978 | fax 336.232.4978

PIRT 1531 - Redistricting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PIRT 1531 - Redistricting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From: FRANK & MARY RAKESTRAW

To: Turner, Denise

----- Forwarded Message ----

Great to see you.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kathy Hartsell <hartsell24@triad.rr.com>

I hope to see you soon.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Donna Newton <bdnewt@yahoo.com>

Please mark your calendars now. The Congress meets on the

Saturday, January 8 - City Traffic Calming Tools;

Tasha J. Cornwell, Security Compliance Officer

From: Turner, Denise

Tasha J. Cornwell, Security Compliance Officer

From: Turner, Denise

Search time frame of Jan. 1, 2011 to present

10-4, will do.

Sorry Tasha, I meant redistricting not farmers market.

Stephen Sherman, GISP, GIS Manager

Department of Information Technology

PO Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136

Interesting concept….don’t suppose they have been

tool goes here

County gives public chance to

Mecklenburg County is offering an online tool that allows

To try it, visit: maps.co .mecklenburg.nc.us/redistricting

Specifically, an online tool went up Tuesday on the county's website,

County officials admit the redistricting tool may be a "frustrating puzzle"

"This is definitely a level of public involvement that hasn't been seen

The online tool is being introduced at a time of heightened public

The redrawing process is being launched to offset population shifts

Michael Crowell of UNC Chapel Hill's School of Government agrees that

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/05/04/2270226/county-

Interesting concept….don’t suppose they have been watching our

tool goes here

County gives public chance to

Posted: Wednesday, May. 04, 2011

Mecklenburg County is offering an online tool that allows anyone to sign

To try it, visit: maps.co .mecklenburg.nc.us/redistricting

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/05/04/2270226/county-gives-public-

----- Forwarded Message ----

There are now 3 new plans on the City website: http://www.greensboro-

----- Forwarded Message ----

Two New Redistricting Plans Proposed

----- Forwarded Message ----

Public Hearing on Redistricting Tuesday at 5:30 pm

WHAT: Public Hearing on Redistricting

WHEN: Tuesday, May 3 – 5:30 pm (during City Council meeting)

WHERE: Council Chamber in Melvin Municipal Office Building,

WHO: A public hearing to receive community comments on

For more information, visit www.greensboro-nc.gov/redistricting.

----- Forwarded Message ----

----- Forwarded Message ----

Second City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed

----- Forwarded Message ----

City Council Redistricting Plan Proposed

Debby Davis, Web Editor

----- Forwarded Message ----

Listserve; My opinion is that we do away with District representation altogether.

----- Original Message -----

----- Forwarded Message ----

From: "bbkchowsky@earthlink.net" <bbkchowsky@earthlink.net>

Listserve; My opinion is that we do away with District representation altogether.