Questions for Mike Moran

When it came to light earlier this month that three people running for office in Sarasota, all new to politics, had erred in accepting donations larger than what the county Charter allows, Commissioner Mike Moran didn't hesitate to condemn their acts:

“I find it outrageous that these candidates appear to be violating the very charter that they were running to protect,” Moran said in a statement. “It is clear they didn’t bother to read the rules of the charter, do not understand them, or have chosen to ignore them.” 

Mr. Moran now has some acts and omissions of his own to explain. 

A look into the Commissioner's public records reveals unpaid business taxes; unpaid intangible tax for three years; questionable and possibly illegal campaign contributions; undisclosed private debt, and the troubling appearance of multiple conflicts of interest within his campaign and Political Action Committee, or PAC, operators. 

Moran and Jack Brill demanded the Sheriff to investigate the Democratic candidates, who received contributions from their own party and its executive committee, all of which they reported to the Supervisor of Elections. Two candidates reported receiving $1,000 each; the third, reported $7,500, - for a total of $9,500 for all three candidates. (HT story 10.2.20)

Mr. Moran found the candidates' acceptance of money from their own party "outrageous." Those contributions however comply with State law, which allows up to $50,000 from parties to candidates. It turned out the party's donations violated a $200 limit peculiar to Sarasota County's home rule Charter.

The Democrats immediately acknowledged their errors and returned the contributions.

Questions about practices

Questions about certain of Mr. Moran's practices have now arisen.

According to the Herald Tribune of October 15, Mr. Moran last year made $100,000 from serving as executive director of a public/private agency that appears to use the credibility of public officials to market home improvement loans. 

Jim Ley

Before becoming PACE executive director -- apparently through recruitment efforts of former County Administrator Jim Ley -- Commissioner Moran voted to approve Sarasota County's working with PACE, the HT reported.

PACE falls under no regulatory authority; a Tampa Bay Times investigation showed that homeowners were not clearly warned of risking a "tax hit":

. . . many homeowners didn’t know their property tax bills could spike. Some PACE recipients in the Tampa Bay area risked losing their homes because they could not pay the hefty loans and thousands of dollars in interest. . . .One Brandon man’s annual tax bill jumped from $900 to $6,250.    TampaBay

Mr. Moran has reportedly helped shape the loan program which has ties to the powerful local builders' association lobbying group:

Manatee-Sarasota Building Industry Association serves as a mailbox for Florida PACE and holds a contractual agreement with the agency – an agreement that Moran helped shape. (HT)

The head of the Building Industry group, Jon Mast, serves on state boards and on the Sarasota Board of Zoning Appeals. The record of interrelationships of Mr. Moran's work on the PACE program raise conflict of interest questions. At least two Florida counties have broken relations with PACE, citing potential dangers and a lack of protection for consumers. 

The convoluted relationships extend further: Mr. Moran's accountant for PACE and another line of private business, Wendi Leach, also chairs the Florida Country PAC which has contributed more than $185,000 to his reelection campaign.

And the Herald Tribune reported that Commissioner Moran failed to pay business taxes due on his PACE directorship job.

Unpaid taxes, undisclosed debts

Soon after the HT story broke, new evidence emerged suggesting that Mr. Moran might face more to answer for:

According to public records cited by NoMoreMoran.com, Mr. Moran 

• not only failed to pay business taxes, but also reported no intangible taxes on two side businesses which account for hundreds of thousands of dollars of income;
• his campaign has received contributions from a 501(c)3 -- illegal in Florida;
• the Chair of the Florida Country PAC, Wendi Leach, is the subject of a federal election complaint alleging an illegal contribution from a foreign corporation, and 
• in public filings, Moran repeatedly failed to disclose private mortgage debt to a Sarasota businessman and political donor:

Arm's length Political Action Committee?

The connections and potential conflicts of interest thicken, as revealed by documented research into Mr. Moran's campaign financing.

PACs are supposed to have an "arms-length" relation to candidates*, yet as noted, Ms. Leach is Mr. Moran's employee in two private business ventures. Mr Moran's campaign treasurer, Eric Robinson, is also treasurer of the Florida Country PAC, which has taken in $185,000 from developers to reelect Mr. Moran. Robinson, who is involved in dozens of PACs that move anonymous money into various campaigns, recently was the subject of a Florida Election Commission complaint resolved in his favor..

For someone outraged by $9,500 of contributions to Democratic candidates, the record of Mr. Moran's actions while in public office raises troubling questions. Sarasota Republican Party Chair Jack Brill, who called for a criminal investigation into the Dems, has said nothing regarding the concerns surrounding Mr. Moran.

What does Mr. Moran have to say?

So far, Commissioner Moran has denied conflicts of interest regarding his role in PACE, but has said nothing publicly about the other issues.

The trail of public records leads to further questions involving large contributions from developers in other counties, and to how the redistricting effort of 2019, rushed through and challenged in court, cost taxpayers some $400,000 to protect Mr. Moran. His District 1 was gerrymandered to exclude voters from Newtown - the black, largely Democratic community. Newtown was removed, and two largely white conservative precincts were added to tip the balance in the Republican's favor.

Read more, with links to public records here: NoMoreMoran.

===

*Regarding the relationship of PACs to candidate campaigns:

Florida Statute 106.011 (12)(a) states: “Independent expenditure” means an expenditure by a person for the purpose of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate or the approval or rejection of an issue, which expenditure is not controlled by, coordinated with, or made upon consultation with, any candidate, political committee, or agent of such candidate or committee. An expenditure for such purpose by a person having a contract with the candidate, political committee, or agent of such candidate or committee in a given election period is not an independent expenditure.

Make a difference - you can jump in up to June 12

From Progressive Sarasota:

June 12th at NOON is the deadline to qualify to be a candidate for office in Sarasota County. For many of the offices there is a qualifying fee in order for you to run for office now that the petition deadline has past, but for some of the smaller offices there is little to no barrier for YOU to step and become an active part of civic life here in the community!

Charter Review Board - The Charter Review Board reviews and proposes changes to the Sarasota County Charter which are submitted to referendum in accordance with the provisions of Article VI of the Charter. Five seats are up for election - no filing fee. Learn more HERE.

Sarasota County Hospital Board - 4 seats up for election - $25 filing fee - Learn more HERE.

We need progressives on these Boards and we need more diverse representation on the boards also. Currently all 10 members of the Hospital Board and the Charter Review Board are White Republicans. And they will be again unless, one of you step up to challenge them. There is only one CRB seat that currently has a Democratic challenger. You can call the Supervisor of Elections office at 941-861-8600 to request a candidate packet for the office you are interested in running for.

Please let Progressive Sarasota know if you are interested in running for any of these offices by emailing them here.

Citizen Power at Fogartyville

This past Tuesday evening, Cathy Antunes spoke with Pat Rounds and Bill Zoller, both longtime advocates for sensible planning and for the public good. The topic was Single Member Voting Districts: how the new electoral structure put in place by a citizens' amendment will actually work in the 2020 election. 

Alice White District 5

Fredd Atkins

They also talked of pushback: The County immediately redistricted in order to remove potential opponents to sitting Commissioners Mike Moran and Nancy Detert, using a map fashioned by the invisible hand of Bob "Adam Smith" Waechter. 

And they noted that the County has also amended the Charter to make citizen amendments so difficult as to be essentially obsolete.

The video is here, with links to the entire evening's discussion. including a lively Q & A with those in the audience. 

Two candidates for the Board were also present: Alice White (People for Trees) is running in district 5, and Fredd Atkins, currently in district Limbo until a a federal lawsuit against the Board is resolved. This year's election holds the opportunity to change the course of Sarasota's public sector. Citizens for District Power is a new group working on getting out the vote. Have a look:

Rounds, Zoller, Antunes: Single Member Districts and Citizen Power

Single Member Voting and Citizen Power

Community activist, blogger and WSLR radio host Cathy Antunes talks with Pat Rounds and Bill Zoller about the big changes to how we vote in Sarasota County, and the reaction from the developer-controlled political operators. Rounds and Zoller describe the new non-partisan group, Citizens for District Power. (If you wish to find out more about this new group, just drop an email to Citizens4DistrictPower@gmail.com.) They spoke at Fogartyville on Feb. 25, 2020.  

The first video of the set is below. You'll find the full discussion and Q & A with the very engaged audience at Fogartyville here.

Further dimensions of the single member voting issue:

When an amendment to switch Sarasota County elections to Single Member District Voting was presented on the ballot (thanks to citizens like Kindra Muntz, Pat Rounds and many more who dedicated hundreds of hours obtaining 15,000 verified signatures on a petition that changed the structure of County elections), the pushback from developers was immediate and intense. Read about that in

The Syndicate Strikes Back.

For more on the intricate way that developer money has infected and infested Sarasota's local elections for years, here's Antunes on Dark Money.

Protest of 12.13.19 at Phillippi against Gerrymandering

Video below of the Friday the 13th Protest at the Gazebo in Phillippi Park near the Edson Keith Mansion where the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners were meeting.

A broad range of speakers protested the Board's Resolution to redistrict without solid data, and its decision to use a meretricious map that excises a large portion of District 1's black voters and excludes potential Democratic and Republican opponents of sitting Commissioner Mike Moran from District 1.

Speakers included former candidates for office like Edward James III, Fredd Atkins, Frank Alcock and Ray Porter; minority rights advocates like Elvira Sanchez-Blake, Valerie Buchand and more, and statements from current office holders including Sarasota City Commissioner Shelli-Freeland Eddie, North Port City Commissioner Jill Luke, and former Venice City Mayor John Holic.

Of the Commission's redistricting action Luke said in part:

"We find them using invalid counts and disenfranchising the very people they swore to serve." 

The Board is now facing a Class Action lawsuit charging it with racially-motivated gerrymandering violating the Federal Voting Rights Act and the US Constitution.

More about the lawsuit in the Sarasota News Leader (subscription req'd) and about the Protest from the Herald Tribune.

Class Action Suit against Sarasota Commissioners Maio, Moran and Detert filed 12.11.19

Below is the heading and paragraphs 1-2, and 19-24 of the class action lawsuit filed today against Sarasota County, charging three Commissioners with violating the US Constitution and the Federal Voting Rights Act:

The entire suit is here.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FREDD ATKINS, MICHAEL WHITE and 

MARY MACK, individually and on behalf of all CLASS ACTION

others similarly situated, (Jury Trial Demanded)

Plaintiffs,

v.

SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, COMMISSIONER 

NANCY C. DETERT, COMMISSIONER MICHAEL A.

MORAN, COMMISSIONER ALAN MAIO,

Defendants.

____________________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, FREDD ATKINS, MICHAEL WHITE and MARY MACK, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, sue Defendants, SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, NANCY C. DETERT, in her capacity as a member of the Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, MICHAEL A. MORAN, in his capacity as a member of the Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, and ALAN MAIO, in his capacity as a member of the Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, and allege as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Sarasota County and its Board of County Commissioners (collectively, the “County Commissioners”) have recently approved, by a 3 – 2 vote, a resolution defining new boundaries for the five County Commission districts (the “Resolution”). The Resolution was designed to deprive, and has deprived, thousands of African-American voters living in the Newtown community of the right to vote in the 2020 election for members of the Board of County Commissioners. It also was designed to deprive, and has deprived, Plaintiff Fred Atkins, an African-American candidate for the Board from District 1, of the right to run for election as District 1 Commissioner in the 2020 election.


2. The Resolution violates the United States Constitution and the Federal Voting Rights Act. This Action seeks to rectify the County Commissioners’ unconstitutional and illegal race-based redistricting, and restore Plaintiffs’, and similarly situated Newtown residents’, right to vote in the 2020 Sarasota County election.

SARASOTA COUNTY COMMISSION ELECTIONS

19. While the voting rights lawsuit helped to rectify the unfair electoral system in the city of Sarasota, the Sarasota County system continued to inhibit election of African-American county commissioners.  The County Charter divided the County into five single-member districts, but did not limit voting to residents of each district. Rather, it permitted all voters in Sarasota County to vote in each County Commission election, notwithstanding the actual District in which the voter resided.  For years, this system impeded Newtown’s ability to meaningfully participate in the election of Sarasota County commissioners, because the community’s votes were diluted by the overwhelming caucasion majority throughout the County. An example of this was the 2016 election for District 1 Commissioner, in which Plaintiff Atkins garnered the most votes from District 1 residents but lost the countywide vote. 

20. One solution to this unfair situation was a citizen initiative in 2018 to amend the Sarasota County Charter to eliminate countywide voting and limit voting in each district to residents of that district.  Over 15,000 citizens signed petitions enabling the initiative to be placed on a referendum to be voted on in November 2018.

21. As described by one proponent of the plan, the citizen initiative generated “a tidal wave of opposition” by Sarasota County’s entrenched power structure.  One of the most vocal leaders of the tidal wave was Robert Waechter, the former head of the Sarasota Republican Party. Waechter publicly opined that the initiative should be voted down because it was designed to prevent Republicans from “gerrymandering,” which is an oft-used technique to protect those already in power.  Even though political or racial gerrymandering is prohibited by Article III, Sections 20 and 21 of the Florida Constitution, Waechter and others in the Republican Party wanted to gerrymander because it would protect the seats of existing commissioners and preserve control of the County Commission by white residents and the Republican Party.  Not only were they determined to gerrymander, they ultimately decided to do so based upon race.

22. Waechter was less than a perfect advocate for the opposition to the initiative.  He had been arrested in 2012 for engaging in a political “dirty trick” – making campaign contributions to Democrats on behalf of Republican primary candidate Lourdes Ramirez, thereby falsely portraying Ms. Ramirez as supporting Democrats.  Ms. Ramirez had run afoul of Waechter and his patrons by challenging proposals for commercial development made by large Republican donors. Waechter ultimately pleaded guilty to a felony violation of election laws and a misdemeanor fraud charge.  He was sentenced to three months of house arrest, two years of probation, 100 hours of community service and $5,000 in fines.  

23. Notwithstanding the efforts of Waechter and others to preserve the unfair voting system, the Charter amendment was adopted by almost 60% of the voters.  By this important reform, each Sarasota County Commissioner would now be elected only by the voters in his or her district.

SARASOTA COUNTY’S REACTION: RACE-BASED REDISTRICTING

24. The reform had another consequence, however, that existing Commissioners and their money patrons feared.  With single-member district voting, Newtown would have a real opportunity to elect a county commissioner who was either African-American or who was responsive to the needs and priorities of the Newtown African-American community in District 1. Indeed, absent countywide voting, Plaintiff Atkins would have been elected District 1 Commissioner in 2016.

Read entire class action suit here.

"An offense to all voters" - Lobeck on Sarasota County redistricting

Update: Gerrymandering/racist charges likely to come in December

Sunday, November 17, 2019

Sarasota Herald Tribune
GUEST EDITORIAL

Not just lines on a map

"As long as he’s a citizen of Sarasota County he’s entitled to submit a map" to redraw the County Commission election districts. — County Commissioner Nancy Detert

Well, Robert Waechter is not just any citizen. And his map, to be voted on by the commission Tuesday, is not just any map.

Mr. Waechter is a convicted criminal, found guilty of fraud for stealing the identity of a Republican opposing the election of Alan Maio to the county commission, to discredit her in the primary by donating in her name to Democrats.

And that was only one incident, linked to a political machine of development interests who hand-pick candidates for local offices and bankroll them to election. I call them the Cabal.

The Cabal was appalled when their big-money domination of commission elections became threatened by 60% voter approval of singlemember districts, despite the Cabal’s expensive and deceptive opposition. Now it takes one-fifth as much money for a candidate to get out a message and neighborhoods are more empowered.

So no surprise when the commission decided to redistrict early, before reliable numbers from the 2020 census, and conduct next year’s election for three commission seats under a new map.

Bob Waechter’s map was submitted under the name of Adam Smith, to hide its source. When Herald Tribune reporter Zac Anderson tracked email addresses to pin the map on Waechter, he at first denied that the map was his.

The Waechter map does two things.

First, it protects incumbent County Commissioner Mike Moran from Democratic voters (who now form a majority in his district) by carving African American neighborhoods out of District 1 and denying them a vote until 2022 (before which I predict the commission will seek to repeal single-member districts).

The second impact is an offense to all voters, including Republicans like me. The Waechter map would carve out of Moran’s district every likely opponent to his reelection, in both parties.

This includes former Sarasota Mayor Fredd Atkins, who has declared, as well as New College professor Frank Alcock, who has expressed a strong interest, and potential candidate Hagen Brody, a Sarasota City Commissioner. All are Democrats.

Also, the Waechter map, in redrawing Moran’s district, curiously jags to the north in the eastern county to carve out Myakka Valley Ranches. Thathappens to be the home of Frank DiCicco, who gave Moran a run for his big money in the 2016 Republican primary despite entering the race at the last minute.

This same thing happens in the district of Nancy Detert. At present, she faces a challenge from outgoing North Port Mayor Chris Hanks. The Waechter map carves North Port out into a separate district, and puts Detert into the Venice district, which is up for election but has no incumbent due to Commissioner Charles Hines being term-limited.

That way, Detert is free of Hanks’ challenge and the Cabal gets a shot at electing Hanks if they choose to anoint him.

On Oct. 30, Commissioners Moran, Detert and Maio prevailed on a 3-2 vote to put the Waechter map before a public hearing on Tuesday, together with an alternative by a consultant which merely moves a large Republican precinct into District 1.

While any redistricting should await the 2020 census, the fact that the Waechter map is even being considered is scandalous. If it is approved it will be a scandal beyond compare.

Dan Lobeck is a Sarasota attorney and president of Control Growth Now.

Coming right up

The WTF wall

Monday, Nov 18: Jim Gabbert's Waste Transfer Facility (WTF), approved by Charles Hines, Al Maio, Christine Robinson, Caroline Mason and Paul Caragiulo in 2015, has a nice wall around it. However, there's a glitch. Mr. Gabbert is seeking to move his stormwater partly offsite and underground. But since he has a binding site plan, this change amounts to asking for a substantial modification -- a Special Exception to his 2015 Special Exception. County Zoning says any substantial modification has to go back to the Board. Mr. Gabbert's attorney this modification is not substantial. See Rachel Hackney's free SNL story about Monday's Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing. This should be interesting: 6 pm at 1660 Ringling Blvd.

Bob Waechter

Tuesday, Nov. 19: The Board of Sarasota County Commissioners once again takes up redistricting. With time running short, it has to decide either to select a Bob Waechter map or another, or drop the entire process, which now is opposed by three civic groups. The Board has received advice from concerned citizens (video below), and now from Gerald Webster, Ph.D. Mr. Webster draws on a lifetime of experience with voter litigation to advise the Board not to pursue redistricting before the 2020 Census. The Board begins deliberating at 9 a.m.

For now, Hurrah!: The Board's Nov. 6 decision to preserve the Quad parcels near the Celery Fields for passive recreation came as a genuine surprise to citizens who had spent nearly three years addressing the issue with the Board. No better organization than Sarasota Audubon to protect the bird sanctuary. But those citizens, while hopeful, are wondering whether anything about the way the Board thinks, plans, listens and decides has really changed: was it a genuinely civic decision, or more like politics as usual? Media and, for now, euphoria, are here.

Expert in Voting Litigation to Board: Don't Redistrict Now

The two final redistricting maps - source: Scgov.net

Spitzer Map 2-1.A

Waechter Map 4-1A

November 12, 2019

TO: Sarasota County Commissioners, Mr. Charles D.Hines, Chair; Mr. Michael A. Moran, Vice Chair; Ms. Nancy C. Detert; Mr. Christian Ziegler; Mr. Alan Maio;

Cc: County Administrator, Mr. John R. Lewis; County Attorney, Mr. Frederick J. Elbrecht With three attachments

FROM: Dr. Gerald R. Webster, Professor Emeritus, Nokomis

RE: Current Effort to Redistrict the Sarasota County Commission Districts

I have followed the debate over whether the Sarasota County Commission electoral districts should be redistricted for many months. Though recently retired, I acted as a consultant and expert witness in voting system litigation for nearly thirty years. I have served as an expert witness in litigation in fourteen states including Florida. I have been hired by the Department of Justice, state governments, local governments, the Legal Defense Fund, NAACP, and Native American Rights Fund, among many others. A large share of these consultations have involved redistricting at the congressional, state legislative, and local government levels

I have degrees in political science and geography with my academic specialty being political geography with an emphasis in electoral geography and redistricting. The majority of my academic career was spent at the University of Alabama and the University of Wyoming. My Vita is attached and may also be accessed at [this link].

Based on my expertise and experience, I would like to provide additional information for the Commission to consider prior to making a decision on redistricting in advance of the 2020 Census. I hope that the County Commission will reconsider and wait to redistrict when the required data are available in early 2021. As I pointed out in a letter to the editor in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on October 5, 2019 (copy attached), there are serious data problems associated with the current effort to redistrict Sarasota's County Commission districts and, therefore, with the maps being considered. Although I recently returned to Nokomis for the winter, I will be out of state on November 19th and will therefore be unable to attend the public hearing.

The Commission's intent to equalize the relative populations in each single-member district due to potential changes since the 2010 census is understandable. But the use of population estimates can be highly problematic at lower geographic scales. Thus, Stanley Smith and Scott Cody of BEBR found that the Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) for estimates at the subcounty level was 9.2%, “more than three times larger than the MAPE for counties” (“An Evaluation of Population Estimates in Florida: April 1, 2010,” Special Population Reports, Number 8, June 2011). As a result, the accuracy of block level estimates of total population as well as breakdowns by race and ethnicity are highly suspect with likely high margins of error.

The use of population estimates does not allow for accurately evaluating the success of the redistricting effort in terms of the equal population criterion (see attached, “Reflections on Current Criteria to Evaluate Redistricting Plans,” by G.R. Webster, 2013, at page 5 for how the equal population criterion is evaluated). Simply said, the use of estimated population data makes it impossible to know if any existing district population contrasts have been corrected, or if they have been made worse than they may be currently. This uncertainty puts the County in a difficult position legally should any challenges be made to the new districts. It is very possible that additional analysis of the new districts on the basis of traditional redistricting criteria will find them flawed and invalid. In addition, there are negative impacts from a legal challenge to the newly approved districts in terms of time and money as well as citizen satisfaction with their local government. In my experience, such litigation is tremendously expensive due to lawyer and expert witness fees, and such cases can drag on for months if not years. The use of the 2020 Census data will provide a much stronger, defensible and acceptable foundation for any redistricting effort by the County Commission.

Clearly, the major problem in attempting to redistrict in 2019 is the lack of current accurate population data at the Census block level, the smallest geographic units in the Census hierarchy which are commonly used to create equally populated districts. The decennial census enumeration collects population data at this level for the country as a whole and will do so again in 2020. The other sources of data such as BEBR and the ACS do not collect data at the Census block level. More importantly, these data are based on estimates, frequently with high margins of error. With respect to the currently proposed redistricting options, Mr. Doty in a September 29, 2019 article in the Herald-Tribune notes that he has no way of calculating the margin of error for the data used but “at the block level it’s going to be high.” I fully agree.

It is true that the results of the decennial census become less accurate as gradual population changes occur throughout a decade. Because the results of the Census are by far the best data for the purposes of redistricting, governmental entities and the courts accept this reality. The best data for redistricting at present are the results from the 2010 Census. These data will remain the most reliable numbers until the 2020 enumeration is completed.

If the county adopts a redistricting plan based on population estimates, it will be impossible to definitely state that the district populations meet the goals of the equal population criterion from a legal perspective. This puts the county in a difficult position legally, and opens up the possibility that additional analysis of the new districts on the basis of other traditional redistricting criteria will find them flawed. For example, without accurate data on race and ethnicity it will be impossible to judge whether the influence of the minority communities has been enhanced or eroded (see Webster 2013, at pages 5-7).

I hope the Sarasota County Commission will reconsider its efforts to redistrict in 2019 and wait until the required data are available in 2021.

Attachments:

Webster, G.R. 2019. “Flawed Population Data Won’t Yield Equal Districts,” Letter to the Editor, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 5 October.

Webster, G.R. 2013. “Reflections on Current Criteria to Evaluate Redistricting Plans,” Political Geography 32: 3-14.

Webster, G.R. 2017. Curriculum Vitae.

Existing Districta and first round of alternative maps

Advocate: Unanswered Questions on county's bungled redistricting effort

Source: ScGov.net

To the Sarasota County Commission:

Below is information copied from the Redistricting page on scgov.net. It includes an official acknowledgment of the public participation in the selection of an Alternative District map, and the timeline to complete your redistricting project.  

Since the first public Open House on 9/18, additional disturbing information has been disclosed which warrants shutting down this early redistricting exercise. Yet your timeline suggests that flawed population methodology and appearances of compromise will not halt your quest to dictate the future of county voters.

Please respond to the following requests:

·      The County acknowledges the contributions of 2000 residents in the input survey, but at your meeting on October 7^th, you essentially dismissed the map preference selected by 90% of the respondents. Please account for this inconsistency.  

“…From Sept. 17 to Oct. 1, Sarasota County Government held five redistricting open houses as well as circulated an online public input survey. We appreciate your feedback — more than 2,000 public input forms were submitted. Read all the input submitted below….”

·      What is the agenda for your “special meeting” on October 30, 2019?  There are no details in the list of Next Steps at the end of this message, although other dates in the redistricting timeline specifically indicate an action or purpose.  On October 30^th:

o   Which maps will you consider---those “citizen” maps enhanced by Kurt Spitzer which show two Commissioners living in the same District—noted by red dots (See link and attachment: Waechter/alias Smith, former Commissioner Mason, Miller and Thomas)? Or will you display even more map options similarly unviewable on screen at a public meeting? 

Please be specific, since there’s an impression that the “Smith” map (aka Bob Waechter) may  serve as the template for the final District map. 

o   Has Mr. Waechter ever participated in configuring District maps for the County Commission in the past, e.g., post-2010 Census?  

o   How will the public be involved in your process---as spectators or active, meaningful participants? You touted this process as interactive and fair.  When will that happen?

o   By October 30^th, will you have shared your District boundary preferences privately with the consultant for a second time? If so, will you divulge what you shared since you also promised to be transparent?  

o   Will you accept additional map boundary ideas from political operatives identified by name or alias?  If so, please expound.

o   Will you go on record and dismiss the flaws discovered and confirmed by subcontractor Richard Doty, a recognized population expert at BEBR, the organization which provided the methodology for your contractor’s population study?  

o   Will you explain how it’s acceptable to demean justifiably concerned citizens by referring to them as “white noise”, when they include the Herald Tribune, Venice Gondolier Sun, SRQ Daily, the League of Women Voters and various City Commissions in Sarasota County?  

Since the “special” meeting on 10/30 is still two weeks in the making, I look forward to receiving your responses in a timely manner. 

Or, better yet---Finally do what’s best for your constituents and tell everyone that you’re waiting until after the 2020 Census to draw new District boundaries.  Displaying this questionable endeavor in plain sight does not make it right, and does not serve the public interest. 

Pat Rounds, 

District 1

Redistricting

Next Steps

• Oct. 30  - BCC Special Meeting on Redistricting

o   Time: 1:30 p.m.

o   Location: Commission Chambers, 1st floor in Administration Building, 1660 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota

• Oct. 26 - Advertise Nov. 5, 2019, Notice of Public Hearing to adopt map.
• Nov. 5 - Board action to adopt district boundaries and associated map.
• Nov. 10 and 17 - Advertise district boundary map adopted on Nov. 5, 2019.
• Nov. 19 - Board action to approve minutes from Nov. 5, 2019, including adopted map and acknowledge proof of publication for inclusion in the Nov. 19, 2019, minutes.
• Dec. 10 - Board approval of minutes from Nov. 19, 2019, acknowledging proof of publication of adopted map.

Net political effect of alternative redistricting maps - switching Republican and Democratic voters

***Breaking UPDATE*** 

Errors found in Sarasota County Commission district population study

The population study that forms the basis of the Sarasota County Commission’s redistricting plan has some big inaccuracies at the neighborhood level, something the expert behind the study warned of and a flaw that could negate the whole purpose for redrawing the commission district boundaries by making it hard to know if the new districts have an equal number of people. 

“To be honest — good, fast and cheap,” Doty said, describing the estimate approach. “We had very little time. We had basically a week to do this work and not enough money or time to do significant quality control.” 

Doty said he has no way of calculating the margin of error, but added that “at the block level it’s going to be high.” 

Read the whole piece: Herald Tribune

=====

The existing county districts are shown here:

Below: An analysis of the specific options presented by the Consultant: Existing districts and three alternative options:

See Sarasota County's web page on Redistricting for district maps and related information:

The analysis below has been vetted on the 3 different Alternative maps proposed for redistricting:

The BOCC’s stated justification for redistricting has been the need to rebalance population across the three districts. This essentially required the private consultant (Spitzer) to increase the populations of D1, D2, and D4 by 3,000 to 4,000 people while reducing D3 and D5 by 5,000 to 6,000. Given the stated desire of preserving the core of existing district boundaries these population transfers do not require major restructuring. Just some modest tweaks.

In order to determine the partisan impacts of Spitzer’s maps we can start with the existing partisan composition of each district before analyzing the changes in partisan composition resulting from full or partial precinct transfers.

As of September 18, partisan composition of the districts was as follows:

D1 – 21,275 Ds, 20,780 Rs, (Ds +495)
D2 – 19,795 Ds, 25,572 Rs (Rs +5,783)
D3 – 17,424 Ds, 26,970 Rs (Rs +9,546)
D4 – 18,718 Ds, 27,969 Rs (Rs +9,251)
D5 – 19,759 Ds, 32,880 Rs (Rs +13,121)

The partisan composition does not translate perfectly into partisan performance (election outcomes). Turnout can vary across partisan registrations along with crossover voting. And NPA voters (which are significant and growing) do not break evenly across Ds and Rs with year to year registration. Rs typically have a higher turnout percentage while Ds tend to get a higher share of the NPA vote. Crossover voting is difficult to determine but it appears to be less apparent with each cycle. All of these factors considered, Ds tend to overperform the partisan composition of most Sarasota county precincts but there is spacial and temporal variation (it varies over place and time).

Past election outcomes demonstrate the above observations. In 2016, Atkins got 488 more votes than Moran in D1. He got 4637 fewer votes than Moran in D2. Most Ds running in 2016 won by modest amounts in D1 and lost by 3000 to 5000 votes in D2. This tracks reasonably close to partisan composition. 2018 was a better year for Democrats in Sarasota County. Beggs “won” D1 by 3095 votes and only lost D2 by 14 votes. She did a little better than Nikki Fried in D1 (who won by 2819 votes) but a little worse in D2 (Fried won by 673 votes). Fried was the best performing D in Sarasota in 2018 btw. Conversely, Jouniari only won D1 by 880 votes and lost D2 by 1183 votes. So, under the current boundaries, a D can win D1 by a few thousand votes in a really good year. In a bad year they might lose by a few hundred to a thousand. In a good to great year a D might be able to eke out a win in D2. In a bad year they can lose by 5000 or more votes.

So how do the three maps change things?

All precinct maps may be found here

Alternative Map 1 moves precincts 203, 205, 207 and half of 209 from D2 to D1. It moves precincts 129, 131 and half of 127 from D1 to D2. It also moves 409 from D4 to D2.

For D1 this means a marginal gain of about 500 D voters. For D2 it is a marginal loss of about 1200 D voters.

Pct. 233

Alternative Map 2 moves precinct 233 from D2 to D1 (there are almost 1700 more Rs than Ds in this precinct). It moves roughly 60% of precinct 127 from D1 to D2. It also moves precincts 405, 407 and half of 413 from D4 to D2.

For D1 this means a marginal loss of about 1100 D voters. For D2 this means a marginal gain of about 500 D voters.

Pct. 127

Alternative Map 3 also moves precinct 233 from D2 to D1. It moves precincts 129, 131 and half of precinct 127 from D1 to D2 and it moves precincts 405, 407 and half of 413 from D4 to D2.

For D1 this means a marginal loss of about 1300 D voters. For D2 this means a marginal gain of about 800 D voters.