Let's call the meeting to order. We'll start out by reading the warning. Notice a Board of Civil Authority meeting Friday, November 12th, 2021 Rochester Town Office or electronically by Zoom, 8.30 a.m. The agenda is the Rochester Board of Civil Authority will meet at the Rochester Town Office or virtually through Zoom on Friday, November 12th to 8.30 a.m. to discuss the apportionment proposed house map. So, anybody have anything to start? Everybody understand what we're here for? Do we need to go over that or we'll go ahead and- Can I make a suggestion? No, sure. Thank you. Good morning everyone on this beautiful Friday. Could anyone that has been the meeting as a member of the Board of Civil Authority or an employee or an appointed person identify their name and what their position is with regard before they start talking so we know who's actually talking? Yeah, you're wanting everybody to do that before they speak is what you're saying. Yeah, just so people, whether it's me here in Pappadupa Hollow or someone zooming in from somewhere else so they know people just don't know who people are. That's right. Who are we talking to? Who are we talking with? My name's Robert Franks. Okay, I guess if we're gonna identify ourselves we'll all be identified. Who's speaking? This is Kevin Doherty. Hi Kevin, good morning. Good morning. So, the way we're gonna do the meeting is we will deliberate on the question and we'll take public comment at the end and you'll have the customary five minutes or anybody will to comment on what we decide. We would appreciate if there's no interruptions during the deliberation. That's not appropriate for this type of a deliberation. So are we all good with that? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Now, apparently we all know why we're here. Yes. Anybody have anything to start? Are there any comments on the proposed redistricting? I came up with a couple with one thing at least that Stockridge is not included in this and I think it's really important and Ripton is which is kind of unusual because we have absolutely no ties with Ripton geographically other than 125 and that includes Hancock and Granville. Not that we can speak for them but for Rochester's point of view, Ripton no offense to anyone but they're really not involved. We're involved with two rivers out of Quiche. Stockbridge is involved with two rivers out of Quiche. Bethel is involved, Hancock and Granville but I don't even know who Ripton is involved with and to have them in our legislative representation and have them have to be in Addison County in a totally different setup than two rivers and not be a part of that. Just seems cumbersome to me. And also I think that with Stockbridge being out we have so many ties with Stockbridge through our school and also through our roads and we tend to have to go through some of Stockbridge to get to some of our properties too. So I would think that it would be behoove the state to keep Stockbridge, Rochester, Bethel, Hancock, Granville and possibly even Pittsfield in the same district instead of having to go to different places to deal with Stockbridge and having a different representative there. So I don't know how anybody else feels about that but that's my take. That was my thought, exactly. And just to add a little something to that both the town of Ripton and the town of Stockbridge are populations in the low 700s. So as far as getting the number of people to be represented it shouldn't be a big deal to trade Ripton for Stockbridge. To add on Pittsfield might add on more people than they'd like to see for the redistricting. But I'm so happy to see Hancock and Granville in this. One of the criteria that they make a point about is create districts that include towns that share common interests. How are you speaking? Brenda Goopy, I'm on the BCA or whatever we are. I'm sorry, Goop? Brenda Goopy. Hi, Brenda. Hello. And that was one of the things and I thoroughly agree with Frank. And it's local knowledge. Those are the biggest things that if you read online that they talk about as being important. And just what Frank said. I turn it out, actually this is Dune Hendricks from the Select Board and also on the BCA. It's state law requires that state legislative districts be contiguous and compact and that they adhere to county and other political subdivision boundaries except where necessary to comply with other legal requirements. In addition, state statutes specify that districts should account for patterns of geography, social interaction, trade, political ties, and common interests. And I think the fact that the state has forced the merger of the schools of Rochester and Stockbridge, and then to turn around and then put this division between the towns is absurd. I think that it's almost like they disregarded geography in some ways. Well, they did the first time around if you look at Hancock and Granville with Orange, I believe, and they have no connection to Randolph and Washington, those towns. They look at a map and it's flat. And, you know, Ripton's two mountain ranges away from Bethel. They have to corrupt, not mountain ranges, but... Yeah, ridges. Ridges, so that makes a difference. And no offense to the Ripton people, I'm sure they'd be better served by someone else anyway, I believe, someone close to them with Lincoln and East Middlebury, they're all right tight there. True. I see no reason for them to be over here, but... Someone mentioned, it's killed earlier, and I think it's definitely appropriate. They're in Rutland County, it's appropriate that they are, the kids go either to Rutland or to Woodstock, and most of their business or people coming into the town are coming in from Killington. So, that's definitely appropriate. And they've been separated for years anyway. For many years, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I also, it's not a decision that we make, but I think it's really unfortunate that they've taken that little hunk of Bethel out, because one of the other criteria was keeping towns in one block. I think that probably it might be something that you have there doing, I'm not sure. I would think that would affect Bethel greatly. I can't believe that they're gonna go along with that. I can't believe they will either, it might be positive for us to speak to it, I don't know. Kind of Bethel's, the larger population of Bethel is with our district. That's correct. So it's just a small. It's my understanding it's from the underpass to the Stockbridge line that's taken out, which seems a bit ridiculous. It is, and I think Bethel would most likely speak to that. It's gonna make their elections just a big mess. So do we have a proposed map that we would submit to them? That's what we're liking? Do we have any more discussion on it before we? No. Okay, I think from what we've said, we do. And it sounds like it would be to swap ripped into Stockbridge. And if we feel we need to, I guess I'm not well enough informed on that little slice of Bethel that's gone, but it does seem awful strange. Doesn't seem that's a super high population area. If they're trying to carve things up to get equal numbers, that's not a big number they're playing with. It's also not a right spot to do, but it's not our call with what Bethel and Stockbridge does either. I mean, we can, we, it isn't. No, but we can address it. We can voice our concerns about it, but I don't think we have any jurisdiction over that quite frankly. No. Truth is we don't have any jurisdiction over it. Any of it. So they're asking for our opinion and they're gonna do what they say see fit. They'll recommend to the legislature and then the legislature is gonna do what they see fit and it could fall completely with the legislature. I think it is good to get our input in there so they understand. Yeah. I agree with that. And that piece of property of the town of Bethel is what joins everything together.  It just seems very odd to make it a working district. A district for all the people that are involved in that district. They need to make it a town, whole town then, not just a cut up of town. Like Granville and East Granville, they need to keep that together as Granville in order to make the voting and everything else they do a lot easier to administer. It says do not divide towns, follow the town and county lines wherever possible. Right, and of course, county lines are not really that possible here. So would we propose the map then? As we've discussed, Swap, Ripton for Stockbridge, and we want to comment on the little part of Bethel. I think we should, yeah. Okay, yeah, that's our only opportunity. It is, yeah. We have to voice how we feel so I think it's a good idea to go. Well, because that's part, that was still part of our legislative district, so we'd comment on the whole legislative district but I'm just part of it, yeah. And we'd be putting their own criteria back to them as far as keeping the towns together. Yeah. So I would say that that's it. You want to go through this feedback form maybe real quick. Would that be helpful to you, Julie? I think we have it. And then we can, we need number nine recommendation, a description of districts recommended to be changed. 10 rationale and comments. Could well, seven districts review what the BCA recommends changing. So basically what we're recommending is to keep it as it is. Keep it as it is. But not as it's presented. Without Pittsfield. Without Pittsfield. But keep it as, you know, well, this is what we have. In current rental, we're never part of this district. No, they weren't. They weren't. No, no, they were part of the district. That's right, they weren't. Yep, they were all part of the other side. We were Rutland, we were Winder, Rutland, Winder. Right, they're Orange. They're not Addison? Well, they're Addison County but they vote in the Orange District for housing. So the, so what you're gonna put in there is keep it as it is before the proposal. Well, it changes somewhat. Well, I had Hancock and Granville, right? That's what we're looking at. Okay, but if you keep it as it is, does that mean? So it's not just keep it as it is. Right. To modify their proposal by switching Ripton for Stockbridge. Right. And adding Hancock and Granville. And Hancock and Granville losing Pittsfield, was Pittsfield part of it? No, no, it wasn't. It wasn't? No, they're part of the killing team around there. Yep, they're still in the same thing. Yeah, so it's not exactly keep it how it is but with these modifications. That would be Additions. Yeah. So we would be Granville, Hancock, Stockbridge, Rochester, Stockbridge, Bethel, right? And the entire town of that. Entire town of Bethel. Basically the Quintown region which has been identified as a kind of a unified front on some levels for a long time. Certainly a common interest. Yeah, yeah. Trouble with what we're doing. This is Mike Harvey, BCA, is that we wanna swap Ripton for Stockbridge where Stockbridge is proposed to be. Because it's very hard to hear people. Sorry, I got a mask on. Can't take it off. Okay. So if we pull Stockbridge from where they are proposed to go, that district now is gonna have to figure out and that's why this is so complicated. Right, right. The state and my feeling is that they probably won't do much of anything because of that dynamic. It's a dice roll, there's a snowball effect to what if one person changes, it's gonna change everything. It is, and who knows what Stockbridge is gonna do. They may feel the same way or they may feel differently. Yeah, Stockbridge is with Bridgewater which they're with two rivers and all of the regional, you know. So we could make our proposal connection. That's how we can do it. And that's it. That's really all we can do. This is just advisory. Well, and we don't know what Ripton's gonna think about this either. They might be, you know. I was then, I know what they think. Yeah. There was a comment already. Was there? Yeah. From one of the, one of the lawyers was in and he really didn't see a common, anything common between Ripton and Bethel. Yeah. Yeah. He, you know, they were district with outside towns from Middlebury basically. Right, right. And that's where they had their common interest. I see. Well, that's good to know though I guess. Yeah. But that's how Ripton's gonna. Yeah. That'll be in their findings. I just think it as you said, it's tragic to have Stockbridge not included when it, I guess one of you said that it's so important to keep that relationship building rather than falling apart. Right, I agree. I think Frank was the first one to say that. But I definitely agree. So it sounds like we have it then. It's fairly simple on our part. It's easy for us to say this is what we think and you make it work. But that's really all we've been asked to do here. Has there been any conversation with Hancock or Granville and how they feel about being moved from their legislative district? I haven't heard anything. Have you ever heard anything? Not that we haven't like it's been said we don't have any control over that anyway. But it would be curious to know if they're all right with anything to. Yeah, yeah, that would be good to know. Well, I think we have it. Do you have enough Julie as far as the rationale? Yes. And you have the map and that's really all we can do. Does anybody else have anything on this particular matter? I don't. Time for a public comment. Robert, you have anything to say on this? Actually I do. You know, months ago I did warn the select board of Rochester that there would be a very good chance that redistricting after the census was taken that this would be occurring. This is a very important meeting and it happens every 10 years basically due to the census. I agree with a lot of the discussion but there's been a lot of concern regarding that just the size of Windsor County, like what does Springfield Vermont have in common with Rochester? So at the, you know, the Rutland Windsor County on the big scale is way too big. It's almost like Burlington in a way and I don't believe that first of all, the senators, Ms. Clarkson, Ms. Nitka and Dick McCormick can really manage it. So this situation is not only due to the census situation and ripped in and Stockbridge and all that. There's a bigger picture which I'm not gonna get into right now but I wanted to ask if Kirk White is present because he is a state representative, should be speaking to this with very serious concern. And I don't- It could be a conflict of interest for him Robert. I don't believe it would be appropriate. I can't understand who's talking and what you're saying. It's Kevin Doherty and I think that would be a conflict of interest for him and it's just as well he's not here. How could it be a conflict of interest for a state representative to be involved with towns being ripped apart? I've not so much ripped apart if you could look at it possibly as gerrymandering which I'm not saying it is but it would be a bad look for him to make recommendations. But a bad look for him, what does a look mean? It would be a bad precedent for him to say that this is how the districts should be. This is- Well I don't necessarily think that Kirk would say this is how the district should be. He would just have his commentary on what is actually happening to give everyone a really good state representative explanation of what has happened. He doesn't have to weigh in on what he thinks should happen. But I'm very surprised and actually disappointed that he's not here. I mean- Excuse me Robert, this is Rebecca Klein and our charge for this meeting has been to respond to the legislative appointment board or apportionment board. Apportionment board. I don't think it's to discuss anything that is not a pertinent to that and I have to say that being basically a volunteer in whatever my time is limited to for these meetings. I'm sorry if I'm being rude, but that's my thought. Well, I mean, as I said to do in the other day, anyone, whether they're elected, appointed, or employed by any town, if they wear the hat of what responsibilities they're gonna take on, you wear the hat. Exactly, and we've addressed the issue. I would like to say that I think, Robert, that you should not be speaking for Kirk either. I just think that this board was set, this meeting was set up for the board of civil authority. And that's who is present here. I can't hear what the person's saying or who the person is. This is Brenda Goopy and I said that I don't think that you should be speaking for Kirk. This meeting is set up for the board of civil authority and we are here meeting. It does not say include other people or whatever. Or public comment. Or public comment, thank you. So you're saying public, or public comment? What? Just to make your point, Robert, just give us your points, what you wanted to do. Your time's running out. No, my time, I don't know who's controlling the clock, but there's been other people speaking in the five minutes that I've been speaking. And so we have to delete anyone else that's commenting. Regarding Julie made a comment, an attorney came into town. Could I have the name of the attorney that spoke to Julie about the, so who would be that attorney that gave an opinion? I don't know his name. It was just a comment that we were making. But you just put it into the minutes and you're not gonna say, you don't know who you- I just said it was an attorney. I didn't have to say his name. I didn't have to say his, I just made a comment. He was not brought here to speak on this topic. He was here on another matter of business and just made a comment. Right. But his comment is impressing the decisions of the meeting. Oh, no, no, no. It's got nothing to do with that, Robert. Robert, this meeting is about responding to the apportionment board and you should please limit your comments to the reapportionment. My last question is regarding the two rivers involvement. Everyone seems to be very concerned that towns are working with two rivers. What does that have to do with this? Nothing. Well, why was two rivers brought into the conversation? For the same reason that the school was brought into the conversation, for looking at unified experiences between the towns and the district. It's certainly not a deciding factor. It was just mentioned in passing, if I recall. Yeah. Well, I don't understand the inclusion of two rivers and the dependency on two rivers with regards to this conversation. There's absolutely none. So that was your last question. We're all set. Robert, is that correct? Thank you for offering more time, but I'm concerned. Well, your concerns are noted. You're concerned about the reapportionment? Just going to say I'm concerned overall. Well, we're all concerned and that's why we're here. I've been concerned about this since I warned the select board that it was going to be happening and now it's not looking too good. I think that perhaps you should bring your concerns to Bethel, are you not a Bethel resident? I live in Bethel and I'm proud of it. Did you attend their meeting, Robert? What meeting? The meeting regarding reapportionment. Could not get there, but couldn't do it. That's too bad. This affects Bethel more than it does Rochester because Bethel is actually being split as a town. Okay, well, I guess we're done. Motion to read all in favor? Aye. Okay, ayes have it. Well, thank you everybody for your time.