as chairman of the commission I call this meeting of the Michigan independent citizens redistricting commission to order at 10am. This zoom webinar is being live streamed on YouTube on the Michigan independent citizens redistricting commission YouTube channel. For anyone in the public watching who would prefer to watch via a different platform than they are currently using, please visit our social media at redistricting MI. Our live stream today includes closed captioning, closed captioning ASL interpretation, in addition to Spanish, Arabic and Bengali translation services will be provided for effective participation in this morning's meeting. Please email us at redistricting and Michigan backup for additional viewing options or details on accessing language translation services for this meeting. People with disabilities need other specific accommodations should also contact redistricting at Michigan back of this meeting is being recorded and will be made available on our website www.michigan.gov/iicrc for viewing at a later date. This meeting is also being transcribed and those closed captions transcripts will be made available and posted on the michigan.gov/iicrc website. In addition number in public comment submissions. There's also a public common portal that may be viewed and accessed by visiting the website, which is once again www.michigan.gov/am. I see RCW. Members of the media who have questions before, during or after the meeting should direct those questions to Edwin woods, the third Executive Director of the commission at Woods II three at Michigan backup. For the public watching and the public record. I'll now turn to Department of State staff to take note of the commissioners present.
It looks like Yvonne unmuted herself but I'm not able to hear her. Yvonne Are you there? Okay, I will go ahead and take roll there with me just a moment commissioners. Commissioners when I call your name, please state that your president didn't tell the public where you're attending this meeting remotely from I'll begin with Commissioner Andrade.
present my Township Michigan
Thank you Commissioner Callahan.
Present attending remotely from Mexico.
Commissioner curry,
present and attending remotely from Detroit Michigan. Commissioner
Ede.
Good morning Miss sharp present remotely attending from Detroit, Michigan.
Commissioner Kellam.
Commissioner Lang
President attending remotely from Lake County Michigan.
Commissioner Let's
present attending from Grant Township Michigan.
Commissioner Muldoon, President from Carleton Michigan Commissioner Orton
as an attending remotely from Battle Creek, Michigan, commissioners,
a tele
President attending remotely from Wayne County, Michigan, Commissioner
volet attending
remotely from Highland Township, Michigan.
Commissioner Wagner
has an attendee remotely from Eaton County, Michigan.
Commissioner Weiss
President attentively remotely from Saginaw Township, Saginaw, Michigan,
and I'll go back to Commissioner Calum. chair with 12. Commissioners president you do have a quorum.
Wonderful. Thank you so much.
We will now move to adopt the agenda. As a reminder to the public watching, you can view this morning's agenda on our website www.michigan.gov/iicrc. On our entertain a motion to approve the agenda. Commissioners Atella. I see your hand. Yeah, I'd
actually want to make a motion to amend it. I'd like to amend unfinished business five c, move it up to five A, so that the new order would be a would be noticed to vacate legal expense. B would be state of Michigan archive C would be University of Michigan archives and so on. That again,
okay, there's a motion and a second to reorder the agenda. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, we'll move to vote. All those in favor of the motion please raise your hand and say aye.
Aye. Aye.
All those opposed? Please raise your hand and say nay. Nay.
Nay.
Well, you get a roll call vote on that please.
Absolutely. Commissioners The motion is to amend the agenda moving unfinished business five c notice to vacate legal expense to the beginning of unfinished business and then proceeding with the rest of the list from there so state of Michigan archives becomes unfinished business b and so on. A yes vote means that you are in favor of amending the agenda in this way and no vote means that you are not I will begin in alphabetical order with Commissioner Andrade.
Commissioner Callahan
Nay.
Commissioner curry.
Yes.
Commissioner IID.
you abstain on this one.
What is the basis for abstention
conflict of interest?
Commissioner Kellam.
I don't think she's saying Commissioner Lang Yes. Commissioner let a commissioner will do. Yes. Commissioner Orton May. Commissioners a tele Yes. Commissioner Veillette Nay. Commissioner Wagner.
Yes.
Commissioner Weiss?
With a vote of five yes to six No. With one abstention. The motion does not pass.
All right. Thank you, Misha. Is there a motion to approve the meeting agenda
and move we adopt the agenda as presented? Second,
we have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as presented as it was sent out to us. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll move to vote. All those in favor to adopt the agenda. Please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Please raise your hand and say nay.
Nay. Nay.
All right, the eyes habit and the agenda is adopted.
Next on the agenda is public comments. If there's no objection, commissioners will begin the public comment portion for today's meeting. Is there any objection? Hearing none, we'll move on. Individuals who have signed up and indicated they would like to provide remote public commentary to the Commission will now be allowed. I'll call your name and our staff will unmute you. If you are on a computer. You will be prompted by the Zoom app to unmute your microphone and speak. If you're on the phone or voice will say the host wants you to speak and prompt you to press star six to unmute. I will call you by your name or the last four digits of your phone number. Please know if you're experiencing technical or audio issues or we do not hear from you for three to five seconds we'll move on to the next person in line and return to you after they are done speaking, if your audio still does not work, you can email us redistricting@michigan.gov And we will help you troubleshoot so you can participate during the next public comment period. at our next meeting, you'll have 90 seconds to address the commission and please conclude your remarks when you hear the timer. We have three individuals who have signed up to speak today. The first being Mr. James gallon.
Can you hear me?
We can. Good morning, Mr. Gallow.
All righty. Good morning, James gallant Marquette County. These are opinions. The Marquette County Suicide Prevention Coalition now has a stated purpose to help formally establish common law parliamentary procedure in Michigan, the Michigan Supreme Court under the Michigan Constitution in the United States of America constitution, it appears the issue of formal as compared to informal deliberations during a public meeting is at the heart of our case in controversy. It was provided to you the instructions by Mike Brady, you must make a motion second that motion to approve a specific action to bring the business before the commission like you're gonna bring business to to dis vacate thing. Okay. The discussion comes after the motion, it appears that you what you're doing is you're blending the standard code for parliamentary procedure. They allow this informal consideration during the public during the meeting. And that's wrong. That's that's institutionalizing Marxist style communism. In America. There's no semblance of order here. You're just gonna make it up on the fly. And I would expect that the members have been boning up on the real rules of Robert's Rules of Order so they can get past you. PAGE 366 line eight. Okay. Please help us to get a formal attorney general opinion on this subject that the State Board of canvassers is doing the same thing under the direction of Secretary State Benson and who appointed Secretary Shar today, because you have had the she Secretary pro tem, because the secretary couldn't be here, because Secretary Benson in my opinion, it is my prediction she will get face a recall election for not showing up at the meetings and not being there as a secretary during the the court ordered redraw now
did we did we lose him?
His 90 seconds was up.
Thank you, Mr. Gallant for your comments. We appreciate them as always. Next up is Mr. Anthony Schell.
Hello, mi CRC. And I'm happy to see that the the special master and the absolutely the plaintiffs people seem to be satisfied with the crane a one submission or final decision you've made. And I guess we're waiting on the court if that's right, if I haven't missed anything. So I you know, I eagerly eagerly await that. And I've already voted in the August primary in our new Motown sound, district one. And so that was pretty fun, and put my ballot in the Dropbox. And, you know, it's funny when that was up for ballot proposal a few years ago, I didn't even vote for that the absentee ballots for anything. I said, No, but now that we have it, I'll use it anyway. Anyway, um, I, therefore, would like to reopen my inquiry as my top issue for them. My CRC right now, my inquiry as to the ongoing and current constitutional eligibility of each of you commissioners on the party affiliation. Question. If you filled out an application five years ago, I think right 2019 Or I don't know when it was filled out but some time ago. Do you still affiliate with the party you said you did in 2019?
Thank you, Mr. Snell. Next up is cotton.
That individual is not present. All right.
That concludes today's public comment portion of the meeting. Please feel free to email comments to us at redistricting@michigan.gov. We appreciate everyone who offers public comment in whatever way you choose and invite you to keep sharing your thoughts. Well now move to unfinished business. Next on the agenda is unfinished business five, a state of Michigan archives chair.
So for we do that, and we just acknowledge that Commissioner column has joined Commissioner column. Can you tell us where you're joining remotely from
the morning joining remotely from Detroit, Michigan?
Thank you so much. Sorry, chair. No,
that's quite all right. Thank you, Miss Charlotte. Welcome, Commissioner column. All right. Unfinished Business five, a state of Michigan archives. If there is no objection, commissioners, I'll ask Executive Director woods to facilitate this item. Are there any objections? Seeing none, Mr. Woods, you have the floor.
All right, thank you very much. Let me share my screen
you've never been able to see my screen.
We can. Okay, perfect.
Thank you. I want to really thank the State of Michigan archive team been working with Cynthia and Brian. And just kind of wanted to give you an update on where we are with the archives. In terms of the archive the website Aom has processed our Commission's website from 2020 on your onwards. So therefore, this means, since the exception of the commission, I believe it was September 17 2020, was the first meeting the Arca Veldt and the Internet archive's Wayback Machine. And so historical versions of the website will be preserved and assessable as it was on a specific date. And access will be a via dedicated on mi CRC web collection, and archives of Michigan Aom will archive and ingest all 2700 Plus individual digital files published on the website since 2020, and any other relevant files identified by the Commission. Examples include the PD reports, minutes maps, public comments, using preserving and assessable via mi CRC collection and archives of Michigan online portal. This analogy so just wanted to make sure that you are aware of that was taking place and then there's two more things on social media. The archive of Michigan will archive the content distributed and communicated through Facebook, Twitter now x, YouTube and Instagram using archive social with a dedicated mi CRC, Porto and then the paper overall collection any records available in hardcopy, such as boxes from India, us from our former executive director of publications transfer overall collection will be cataloged and described in the archives of Michigan online catalog. So what I wanted to just share with you is the process that is ongoing with regards to the Commission's records. As many of you know, other states have used what is taking place in Michigan as a best practice as a benchmark. And we've already heard how the state of Colorado adopted the Commission's rules and procedures, how Ohio looked at the commission with regards to its own ballot proposal, and how things are functioning in Michigan. This will be a topic for research. And so we just want to make sure that we have everything set up and present in the state's archives so that people can readily find the information. And then making sure that whatever hard copies or information that you may have in your possession, that we can get to the archives of Michigan as well. So it can be cataloged. Um, if there's any questions, I can take them at this time.
All right, hearing none, I can move to the University of Michigan. The University of Michigan is working in concert with the state of Michigan archives with regards to that. However, just so we're clear at the University of Michigan, they are also the depository for voters, not politicians, and also the depository for the close up program that was previously run by M Tommy vaako, who has now retired. And so we are working with them taking a tour of the facility. As you know, in the past, they have made a request to hear directly from commissioners individually, individually, with regard to their pride, the process of serving on the commission, and how you felt and wanting to do an individual interview to get your perspective in order to participate in that they do request a sign off. But it's the choice of each individual Commissioner as to whether or not they choose to participate. But they're interested in getting this project started in August. And so I will be reaching out to you with regards to that. But just letting you know that we will have it, the archives at obviously the state of Michigan, but also at the University of Michigan. And once again, the University of Michigan will also have all the archives from voters, not politicians, as well as the close up. If there's any questions, I can take them at this time.
All right. Then out Commissioner eat I think because of what's happening, it would be nice if we had a committee that could kind of just assist me with regards to this. There's going to be a lot of moving parts in the next couple of months to make sure that everything is there. And I would like to suggest commissioners Elaine Andrade, Commissioner Cynthia Orton and Commissioner Janice Villette to assist me with regards to a subcommittee on archives.
Okay, that would have to be a motion from a commissioner to establish that kind of subcommittee.
Are there a move we established the committee is suggested by Executive Director Woods provided that the three named individuals concur that they would serve.
Second.
We have a motion in a subcommittee to I'm sorry, we have a motion and a second to establish a archive subcommittee with commissioners Andreotti, Commissioner Orton and Commissioner of the let's to sit on Site Committee. Is that right Commissioner lot? That's correct. Okay, is there any discussion on the motion?
Let's let's ask if they would agree to serve
what do y'all think? Question over let commissioner or in Mr. Andrade,
you're good with that.
I'm willing to serve there.
Yeah, I am to
Russia or and we did not hear you.
Or you didn't hear me. Yes. I am happy to serve there.
Wonderful. All right. With
that said we'll go to vote. All those in favor of the motion please raise your hand and say Aye Aye. Any opposed?
Nay, nay.
Okay, the ice habits subcommittee is established. I'm sure you all will work well with U of M and Mr. Woods in order to make sure we have a good archival process there. Thank you in advance.
Next on the agenda is unfinished business five seat notice to vacate legal expense. At this time, I'll transfer the chair to our vice chair, Commissioner Kalam to handle this portion of the agenda.
Thank you, Commissioner IID. So we'll have our local counsel Nate Fink, who I know is present because I see his face and he's getting ready to speak he has his ready to speak face and so Nate Fink will present and facilitate this item if there are no objections. Okay, Hearing no objections, please proceed. Mr. Frank.
Thank you Madam Chair. Good morning to everybody. I hope everyone's doing well. The Commission will recall that there was a notice to vacate requests submitted, requesting the removal of Commissioner EAD from the Commission. I'm not suggesting and I don't think it's appropriate for us to re litigate any of the issues that were addressed in that request. But there's one remaining issue. That's that's still hanging out there. The commission voted on February 8, not to proceed with the notice to vacate and not to remove Commissioner eat from the Commission. The Commission's Rules of Procedure specifically, rule 3.4, e. Two, I can share my screen and share that provision.
Right now.
Everyone see my screen? Yep. Okay. So as I indicated, this is the Commission's Rules of Procedure. This is Section 3.4, which relates to a notice or request to remove a commissioner from the Commission for various reasons 3.4 e two states. And I'll highlight the language here. If the vote to declare the members seat vacant fails, the member may be reimbursed for reasonable attorney fees utilizing the lodestar method and the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, which include the relevant factors to figure into calculating the lodestar amount and whether any adjustments upward or downward are appropriate. So the key term and what I take from that is that the Commission may not last but may reimburse, or Commissioner IID for attorney fees that he incurred related to the notice to vacate proceeding, because the commission did not vote to remove him from the Commission. His counsel in that proceeding was the DICOM, a law firm, led by Steve Leto, they submitted invoices, I say invoices because they submitted their their their full rate invoice, and then a discounted invoice. Those invoices have been shared with the Commission. I reviewed those invoices. And they appeared to me to be reasonable the rates that they have included, particularly the reduced rates that they provided, seem to be reasonable the amount of time and the time entries that they provided seem to me to be reasonable, nothing jumps out at me as being inappropriate. And I would not recommend either an upward or downward adjustment as as provided for in the Commission's rules as it relates to those or to the invoice that was submitted. So if the Commission decides that it wants to reimburse Commissioner eat for his attorney fees related to that proceeding, I don't see any issue with the invoice that was submitted, seems to be reasonable to me. And I'm happy to address your answer any questions that anybody might have. But that's what I have.
Commissioners Atella.
So I don't have any particular questions, but I do have comments on this. Are you fine with me proceeding with this at this point?
I don't have any issue with it. I mean, I don't know if there's any, like motion before the commission at this moment about but it's an agenda item I would defer to the chair.
Yeah, I don't see there. I don't see any issue with comments as long as they remain. Remain germane to what Mr. Fink just presented in an open up Something that we've discussed in previous commission meetings? Well,
in case there's an outlet wired, I would make the motion that we pay the invoice as stated and then we can open it up for whatever discussion we want to do.
That, okay, commissioners Atella, has asked to make comments. We also have a motion on the floor by Steve lead Commissioner lead, and a second by Commissioner Weiss. Excuse me. Is there any discussion on the motion? Well,
I think yeah, I think commissioners Atella is probably going to have some discussion. Right.
And so that's why I was gonna give her this opportunity. I'm just making sure that I'm still fine. Commissioner, let okay. If
I may, before, before we engage in the discussion, Madam Chair, if I may just add something to clarify. Sure. Okay. So I think the motion was made to pay the invoice. I think it should be clear, as I indicated, there were two different invoices there was the original invoice or I guess, the original invoice and a reduced invoice. I believe that the reduced invoice is the should the commission decide to pay one, that's the one that the commission should consider paying. So I would, I would suggest that perhaps the motion be modified just to be clear that that's the that's the commission to that's the invoice and just to be even more clear for the record. So when it's in the amount of 616 $1,730.10.
Well, that would that would be correct. I interpreted their billing, it's the discounted. Invoice was the one they were asking to be paid for my motion, but it's the discounted invoice. Okay. Thank you. Okay,
thank you for that. Commissioner. Let commissioners Atella.
Yeah. So the first thing I want to comment on is looking over this bill. There's multiple entries on here for anything discussion related to amending the rules of procedure. I don't think that's appropriate to be included in this whatsoever. Because we have counsel, Mr. Fink was advising on the rules of procedure and made draft revisions to it, there is a reference as well about Mr. Li Tao communicating with Mr. Fink about changes to the rules of procedure. And the fact that Commissioner Eid wanted to use Mr. Li Dao, for side discussions related to the rules of procedure should not be something that should be paid for or covered by this commission, we have our own counsel. And so there's no need for that. I also want to raise the fact that this very commission, and I know the three new commissioners weren't part of this discussion. So just for some background in the summer of 2023. I, Commissioner Lang I believe also, in Commissioner Wagner at various points had asked for our own counsel, our own independent counsel, because we were named individually in the ag case. And that request was to pay for that counsel was refused by this commission. And the arguments made at that time, is that commissioners are free to hire their own individual counsel for whatever reason, but that they are financially responsible for the costs associated with that counsel. So I think it would be extremely inconsistent for this commission to now say, in this situation where Mr. IED went out, hired his own counsel, who negotiated his own rates with them, excuse me for one second. And was responsible for the direction of what they were working on and what they weren't working on, for the commission to be paying for that when the commission has taken a position in the past, that those expenses would not be covered. The expenses for Mr. Eid were in his personal capacity as a commissioner, they were not on the commission as on behalf of the commission as a whole. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where it authorizes us to pay for individual Commissioners, legal expenses, it does authorize the payment of the Commission's legal expenses, but not individual Commissioners. And so I think it's inappropriate for the commission to take that position that he should be paid for this and I think it's particularly concerning in the context of of what the allegations in the notice were, they were allegations of corruption. And now this Commission is considering pain, Mr. Eid are personally enriching him. For allegations of potential public corruption. I think that's a very disturbing position to take. If you guys want to take it, knock yourselves out, but it's not something I could ever support. Thank you.
Commissioner Wagner, I saw your hand up briefly. Would you like to add any comments? I want to make sure Before I move on
now, but I totally agree with in the snares of the tele Thank you,
Commissioner let
Thank you, Madam Chair in response to commissioners Atella clearly as stated by Attorney Fink here today, there is a separate provision which provides that a person who is subject to a motion to vacate which was brought on by commissioners that tele against Commissioner IID is a under a separate provision to pay for his expenses, not the at the Commission's expenses. He gets if he if he prevails, which he did in this, then his attorney fees are are covered by the commission if we so vote. And so to compare that commissioners tele wanted her independent or separate legal fees paid under a provision under the lawsuit ag lawsuit which covered everybody, not just Commissioner EAD, or and or commissioners. Atella. There's no particular provision for that. We debated that back in the day, and it was determined that we weren't the commission wasn't going to pay for separate, in effect, the possibility of 13 separate attorneys of all the commissioners chose to go that way on that individual lawsuit has nothing to do with somebody trying to kick one of the commissioners off, which seems to be commissioners that tell us want. The Dykema firm certainly is a well respected firm in Michigan been around a long time. Mr. Leto is a well respected attorney. And under the formula used in determining reasonable rates. As Attorney Fink has said, you look at the lodestar method, which looks at what is the nature of the representation in this it was to represent Mr. Eat Commissioner IID in what was I would at least consider Mr. Fink may have a different opinion. I'm sure commissioners Atella has an opposite view. But this was a rather unique situation. In that we are a new commission. This had never been tried or alleged to be in play. So there was a certainly a unique questions that required significant research on his part. So having an his hourly rate and he spread it out. He didn't use his hourly rate on everybody. He had other less paid. associates working on it. So that lowered the cost. So having said all that, clearly it was it's within Mr. Commissioner EADS purview to request the commission to pay the invoice that discounted invoice. And I think, given the circumstances having been brought, which I considered and former commissioner Clark considered and we saw put in a report that they were unfounded. And so to to continue to push after that report resulted in these expenses. And evidently, and I'll say this from commissioners to tell his comments today they're almost libelous against Commissioner eat. So I would urge the commission to approve the payment of these expenses. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner let commissioners Atella.
So, a couple of points. With respect to Commissioner let's reference to this supposed report that Commissioner Clark and himself prepared. Number one there was no such report. You To claim that there was some report issued to the commission, you were never authorized the two of you to get together to make a decision on the behalf of the commission. That was something you did on your own. And those allegations, then were relative to Commissioner EADS, employments, with a particular entity that had worked closely with the Commission, during the drafting of maps. The notice was actually significantly broader than that, that the notice actually involved the drawing of districts to benefit Democratic politicians. And it included many other things. So what you did in the summer, what you and Mr. Clark did on your own, where you guys formed your own little committee and formed a conclusion about whether you thought there was merit. That really has nothing to do with the notice the notice was much broader, and there was no report related to the notice. I honestly would take issue with the claim that Commissioner eight prevailed, I think you guys refuse to consider it, which is what you did with the prior concern about the employment with Michigan voices. That being said, I also want to point out that the question is actually the same. In some ways, he has independent counsel that he's acquired. The Commission changed the rules in January, obviously in consultation with Mr. Lai del based on the billing where it indicates that he was communicating with Mr. fings, about those procedural changes that were made to benefit Mr. Eid. So I think even as of January, before we even had any kind of pretend hearing, notice, it was pretty obvious that this commission was not going to entertain the notice, consider it seriously or have a hearing on it, because they were already changing the rules to create this, this loop where Commissioner E gets to be compensated if he responds to the notice. So if that rule had been in place long standing, I would say, Oh, the rule exists, but no, it was specifically changed to benefit Commissioner EAD. And I have a feeling that if my notice had proceeded or proceeds in the future, you guys would take a very different view on covering my legal expenses. So you know, I just think there's a little bit of intellectual dishonesty that's happening here. With respect to the hiring of attorneys. And I think particularly in the case of AEG, where you have people who are being named in that situation, individual attorneys would have been appropriate, but the Commission said they weren't going to pay for them. And that's fine. In this situation, the only benefit of this hiring of an attorney is to benefit Commissioner eat, it was not to benefit the commission. It wasn't designed to help the commission as a whole. It was for his own individual benefit. And again, if you guys want to go ahead and reimburse him for that, you know, it's on you you guys own that. It's inappropriate, I'm not going to change my opinion, that is inappropriate. And ultimately, you know, you guys are going to do what you want to do. And then you know, you get to own that. So
Commissioner Callahan.
I think it would set a pretty chilling precedent. If we were to refuse to pay Commissioner EADS legal fees, because what this would mean for anybody else who's thinking about possibly serving on this commission in the future, they would have to be aware that they are opening themselves up to being accused of corruption and unethical behavior baselessly or otherwise, by anyone else on the commission, who perhaps
has an axe to grind. missioner calm,
you're breaking up a little bit, and then that purchase served on commission for not that much money.
Is it can you Is it better now? Yes, no. I just think it's a terrible precedent to set that any citizen would be opening themselves up to 1000s of dollars of legal fees to defend themselves against anyone on the commission who has an axe to grind against them, and wants to make accusations and then they just have to like, either have their reputation smeared publicly and not defend themselves, or spend 1000s of dollars of their own money to try to get their reputation back. I don't think that's a precedent. We want to sit for this commission going forward. That's that's just in my mind. That's ridiculous.
Thank you, Commissioner Callahan Commissioner eat well, you know, that's
exactly why we put the rule in in the first place that the commission should reimburse commissioners if there is a notice to vacate and that notice to vacate didn't succeed.
Look forward to the border. But just for clarification, care or acting chair Callum when there is what but not be an abstention because this is regarding Commissioner eat and therefore he wouldn't be able to participate in the discussion in favor of or against doing the paying the bill. I just want clarification on that. So we're doing everything correctly.
I am not aware of Commissioner EADS inability to speak during debate and discussion on this matter. But if Megan, you have any guidance, since Commissioner Lang has raised a point of order
don't believe there are there is anything in your rules of procedure regarding this?
It would
appear that it would be inappropriate for him to participate in the vote and thus I would advise not participate in discussion, but I would defer to the commission.
Mr. Fink, did you want to say something or no?
Yeah, I was gonna say I don't the section 3.4. The to say the member subject the allegations contained in the notice may not participate in the resolution of the matter by the Commission. That's, I think, more contemplating the discussion of the actual request to remove not necessarily this component of the discussion after after the fact. But that said, I mean, you know, we're hearing from plenty of commissioners and hearing their perspective. So, you know, I'm not, I'm not sure that it's necessary to you know, to hear from the commissioner, the subject of this, but I don't know that there's an explicit rule either way. So I guess I would defer to the chair on this to make your call. Context. Okay.
Commissioner, he did you feel particularly and passion to continue your statement? If not, I'm going to hear from other commissioners during this time.
I'll yield. I may come back, though. We'll see. We'll do
so with caution. Okay, commissioners Atella. Yeah, I'm
sorry, I forgot to address Commissioner. Let's claims that I'm somehow libeling. Commissioner IID. First of all, libel is written slander is spoken. So it wouldn't be liable anyway, and it's certainly not liable to raise facts. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation includes both a and
b. So commissioners, Atilla before Commissioner eat was going to say point of order. And I actually was, I didn't want to interrupt you the last time, I am totally fine with having the floor remain open to you as you express factual information. But when if you could avoid coloring it with any assumptions or referencing to whether people have feelings about one person or another, if you're just presenting exactly what happened that can be backed up without any conjecture, that would be great. And you're totally allowed to respond if you feel like you disagree with someone else. But I really would like this portion of the debate and discussion to focus on the legal fees that relate to the vacation. So if we could do that, and we still do have a motion that was presented by Commissioner led to have the vote. So this doesn't have to be an exhaustive thing. But of course, I want fellow commissioners, to be able to shed light on whatever they deem necessary, but in a respectful way with no innuendos or
so I appreciate that. I'm just laughing because I feel like the point where you should have chimed in on that would have been when Commissioner lab accuse me of libel. But yet you said nothing, man. Oh, now when I'm trying to respond to it, you're trying to cut me off. So if I could just complete my sentence, nothing I said was libelous against Mr. EAD. As an attorney, Mr. Lett knows that so well. And again, my vote is still going to be no on this because I think it's totally inappropriate.
I mentioned or lit
me call the question.
Okay. There is there is no further discussion on the matter.
That would need to be seconded. There.
I'm sorry. Right. Call a question by Commissioner led second by Commissioner Mountune. Is there any discussion on the matter Okay, all those in favor of the discussion ending, please raise your hand and signify with roll call please.
Absolutely. This is a motion to call the question and any debate on the motion to pay the reduced invoice if you are in favor of ending all discussion that that would be a yes vote if you are not it would be a no vote. We will do this in alphabetical order beginning with Commissioner Callahan.
Yes in debate, Commissioner
curry,
no.
Commissioner Eid? Yes. Commissioner Callum? Yes. Commissioner Lang No. Commissioner lat Yes. Commissioner Muldoon? Yes. Commissioner Orton? Yes, commissioners. Atella. So
I'm going to vote yes, but I'm also questioning whether Commissioner eat should be voting on these matters. Just raising that as an issue. Point of order, I guess.
I believe that your attorney, Mr. Fink already weighed in on this and the rules of procedure more addressed the notice to vacate than this part of the procedure. So I would defer to acting chair Callum.
My understanding was Mr. Fink said it was there was a difference between the discussion and the voting, but I'm sure he can chime in on that. I mean that this vote benefits him. So he shouldn't it's a conflict of interest. He shouldn't be voting.
So this is a point of order, I would need a decision from acting chair column.
Well, there's nothing in the rules that say I can't eat you're not.
You're not share, and there's no discussion on this point.
So I'm going to say so this runs more cleanly and it doesn't turn into a mudslinging because every time he gets involved, I'm going to honor the point of order Commissioner II won't be voting for this discussion, The End of discussion.
Okay, so Commissioner eat just for the record. Can I have your vote as abstain, then? Sure. Okay, thank you. So commissioners, the teller I don't think I got your vote. Or if I did, can you restate it? Yeah, it
Commissioner Andrade? I did not hear you commissioner on Friday. Yes, they go. Vote of nine Yes. To three now with one abstention.
The question is called.
Thank you, Megan.
So there is a motion that was made by Commissioner led and it was seconded by Commissioner Weiss a motion to for the commission to pay the discount an invoice as it relates to Commissioner EADS notice to vacate legal expense by the DICOM. Affirm all those in favor. But it would be a roll call vote for this as well.
Absolutely. So
this is the motion to pay the reduced invoice of $16,730.10 to Dykema. for legal expenses incurred representing Commissioner eat and the notice to vacate. A yes vote means you're in favor of paying those expenses. A No vote means you are not I will begin alphabetically with Commissioner curry.
Yes.
Commissioner Eid, is it correct that you're abstaining due to conflict?
I'll abstain. I don't think it's due to conflict though. But I'll abstain.
Commissioner Callum? Yes. Commissioner Lang. No. Commissioner lot. Yes. Commissioner Muldoon? Yes. Commissioner or 10? Yes. Commissioners, the tele No. Commissioner have a lot Yes. Commissioner Wagner. No. Commissioner wise?
Yes.
Commissioner Andrade?
Yes.
Commissioner Callahan?
Yes.
With a vote of
nine yes to three no with one abstention. The motion is approved.
Thank you, Megan. Thank you commissioners. At this time because that item on our agenda is completed. Commissioner eat I am returning the role of chair back to you.
Thank you, Commissioner column, I'd like to thank you for addressing that portion of today's meeting. I also like to thank the Dykema firm for their assistance in this matter. We'll now move on to new new business. However, I do see Commissioner Curry's hand raised.
Yes, I had just wanted to make a statement that this was my first time even hearing about a lawsuit. So I wanted to vote yes for more discussion, but I'm fine with the lawsuit. And I just want to make that clear.
Thank you, Commissioner curry.
Okay, Commissioner, let
Mr. Think
Thank you. I just wanted to clarify for the record and for Commissioner. There's no new lawsuit or anything this really this discussion related to the Commission's decision to reimburse Commissioner EAD for his attorney fees incurred related to the request to remove him from the Commission that the Commission had addressed back earlier this year. So there's no new lawsuit or anything.
I didn't think it was a new lawsuit, I was stating that I had not heard in detail all that I heard today. Okay.
I just wanted to make never heard of it. Okay. I just wanted to make it clear that there's no juicy, there's no confusion about that. There's no new lawsuit or anything like that. Thank you.
All right, glad everyone's on the same page that we can put their business behind us. We'll now move on to agenda item. Five D, unfinished business public comment analysis. If there's no objection, commissioners, I'll ask Executive Director woods to facilitate this item. Are there any objections?
Hearing none, Mr. Woods, you have the floor. Right,
just want to inform the commission that the University of Michigan students are putting together or compiling their data into a booklet and also we'll be sharing lessons learned for the consideration of the next commission with regards to the analysis of public comment. So just wanted to make sure that you're aware of that. And we'll be receiving that so there's just more info. Once again, want to thank that entire crew for all that they did. And aggregating the public comments, as the commission may know, that was something that came out of our lessons learned that we would do that so that the Commission can use that in its consideration and drawing a map and so it was just good to see the commission following its own advice through the lessons learned process so just want you to be aware of that. If I make commission to eat the rest of the unfinished business and new business is mine. So if you want I can just go to the next item.
Are there any objections commissioners to executive director Woods continuing on to his new business items? I don't see any Mr. Woods, you can continue. Alright, thank
you. And we'll put this on the screen.
Alright,
just want to note that the fiscal year 24 bytes of supplemental request was paid for, I should say it was voted on it was voted on June 27. For the amount that the Commission requested 3,000,300 and $31,200 Go ahead.
Um, I just wanted to say the screen is a little strange. It has give subtitles a try is kind of covering up part of the slide.
Oh, it's Is that better? Something that they wanted me to do? Is that office? Oh, now it's trying to. Okay, how about that? Is that good? Does that work?
Okay, thank you share
that work. Okay, thank you. We're still waiting for the funds to be deposited. So I just want you to know, although the money has been approved, it has not been deposited. I'd like to express appreciation to Governor Whitmer, state senator Sarah Anthony, state senator office, State Budget Office, the Michigan Attorney General's Office and the Michigan Department of State for working with us on this was done as a tag team, along with think Bresnik. And so definitely want to thank Nate Fink as well as David Fink as well. Once the money is deposited, we will be paying the outstanding bills that haven't been paid, so that we can be current. If there's any questions with regards to the fiscal year 24 budget supplemental requests, please let me know.
Thank you, Mr. Woods.
I'm going to assume that there are no questions. Is that correct? Does
that look like there are at the morning, good.
We're in the process of completing the draft report for the House and Senate remedial commission report. As you already know, the Senate remedial plan was submitted to the court and is scheduled to be broadened by no later than a week from Friday. So we have started with the house and then we will continue with with the Senate if the court approves the plan. And so just want to show you where we are with this report right now. And so that you have context of where we are, so that you can see it, but it's pretty much set up similar to the previous commission report. The main difference here is that this is done. That only includes the house remedial plan, but as the House and Senate remedial maps, this will not be a full commission report. But it will be done one that considers the House and Senate remedial maps. It has a table of contents that outlines everything with regards to that, after the table of contents is to forward that we've been working on I've been working on with our local council to make sure everything is there. This one is like the draft language that we have for the house. And I will be sending this out to you for your review. It has the purpose statement in terms of why we're doing the report according to the constitution that were required to do this. And of course, the seventh rank decision criteria. I'm after that it has the following plan, the legal description and interactive map. And this is the same information that you can get off the website. It's just in a booklet it will be done electronically, where you'll be able to hyperlink to the legal description that's done through the Michigan Department of Technology Management and Budget. Then after that it has the map that was actually voted Motown sound, f c e one after that, it has the Voting Rights analysis so that you can see the what was actually off the website. Then it has the population. And it gives you a notice to the meeting materials so people can see the dates and where the meetings were so people can follow it, as well as the mapping data. And then it goes down and give you the population by the districts. All of the districts are in there. Just so people are aware, as well as the new districts that were changed so that They have all of that so that they can see the data. Same thing happens here with the Voting Rights Act analysis that we showed you earlier. Then the Motown's, F C, F, C, E, one voting, age population, all this information available on the website just put in a booklet that communities of interests. This links to the coming out comments on the State House remedial map, which would be the mapping comments Portal link to the public comment portal. And then the comments made do commission meetings from the meeting information. These comments are best, um, obtained through the transcripts for when these meetings actually took place. We talked about partisan fairness. And then we put in the same information that's also the website is placed in here by districts everyone can see it.
After that, you see the mean, median difference, which is on the website, the efficiency gap, which is also on the website, and the seats to vote ratio. Then we have the compactness information people are able to see. Then after the compactness information, we have the appendix which lets people see the old map the 2020 to Hickory map, then they're able to once again see the 2024, Michigan House of Representative map. And then it has a cover where it lists each of the commissioners that participated. Now what we're also adding to the commission report is the court order and opinion that initiated the court order, and that the court order that came out in December, I mean 21, I believe, and then also the opinion that came out in March with regards to the approved map. And then we will also add the core retention as a part of the appendix. So just kind of wanted to give you an overview of what's being worked on. In terms of putting the report together. We will be asking the commission to actually vote on the report in September, after we see where we are with the Senate. I'm so just wanted to make sure that you're aware this report follows the same outline as the approved commission report that was created in 2021. For the maps. Having said that, there is no deadline or requirements have a deadline for commissioners who would like to submit a descending report as to be included as a part of the commission report. And so my goal is to get this done before the end of the fiscal year, which is obviously September 30. In terms of it actually being voted on by the Commission. We do have a commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 19. As you know, we meet our regular meetings are the third Thursday of every month. And so it would be helpful if I could get any descending reports by Thursday, September 12. So that we can include it in the commission report. Once again, any one that submits a descending report that does not repeat, that does not have to be approved by the commission. But it does need to be included in the report. So this is since there's nothing in the Constitution or in our rules with regards to a deadline. I am just throwing it out there that the Commission make a deadline for Thursday, September 12. So we can actually put it into the book and have it for the commission to vote on September 19.
I move we adopt that as the deadline for the dissenting reports if any second.
We have a motion and a second commissioners. The motion was made by Commissioner lat and seconded by Commissioner Weiss. We'll open the floor to discussion on the matter. And we'll start with Commissioner Orton.
Yeah, I just want clarification on so a dissenting report. If we if we vote this, it would be due September 12. And that could be written by anyone who voted no on either map House or Senate.
We could correct it if you voted no on the house. For Motown sound FC one you can submit it to send a report in If you voted no, or it wasn't your first choice, we did rank voice vote voting on the Senate remedial map, you can submit it to city report.
Thank you.
missioners Atella?
Yeah,
um, I've already had some, excuse me one second. Sorry, my throat is bothering me today. Um, I already had some chatting with with executive director, Woods about this the last time we did dissenting reports. Those of us who are submitting them worked on them until June. So that was almost six months after the original report, as as Mr. Woods has indicated, there is no deadline in the Constitution. I will be preparing a dissenting report, I will not be able to get it done by September, I was very clear with Mr. Woods about that, that I anticipate taking the same amount of time that I took last time, which would be five to six months to work on it. Because it is a significant amount of work to get these things done and to make sure they're well researched, because we do have 10s of 1000s of pages of documents and things that need to be gone over. So like I said, September is just a grossly insufficient amount of time. It's significantly shorter than than what we had for the last dissenting reports. And I would actually make a motion to amend the deadline to December 31 2024 to give me adequate time to prepare my dissenting report.
So I can
Okay, we have an amendment to the original motion made by commissioners Atella seconded by Commissioner Wagner to extend the deadline in the original motion to December 31 2024. Is that correct? Commissioners? Teller? Yes. All right. Is there any discussion on the amendments? Commissioner Orton?
Yeah, I just wonder about timeline.
So we need constitutionally,
we need to create a report published a report. Correct. And you're trying to get these dissenting, any dissenting reports into that report? Is that correct, Mr. Woods?
That is correct.
So timeline wise, how would that work? Because when the when the lawsuits are complete, and we complete our work, we go dormant. So how does that all work with dormancy?
I would have to defer to Mr. Fink on that. In terms of what happens if we were to in dormancy mode in December? And how would that deadline of December 31? Work? I don't know.
Chairman? Okay, thank you. Um, I think the commission should complete all of its work before it goes dormant. And that would include publishing its report, and any dissenting reports related to its work in the in the remedial phase. So I don't know exactly when that dormancy date is going to hit. We are hopeful that the court is going to approve the map by July 26. And presumably, shortly thereafter, within a couple of months, the Commission will be ready to to go dormant because all of its litigation will be concluded. And so it I don't know if that's going to drag out into into December, I would sort of defer to, I guess, to Edward beck to you on on the timing of that. But I definitely think that the Commission needs to complete all of its work, which really the last major piece of that I think will be completing this report. So I absolutely agree that that should be the deadline should be set in advance of the anticipated sort of target date for dormancy.
Michelle, Commissioner curry Do you have a hand raised? All right, commissioners. Atella.
So my understanding of the door RNC is that we vote to go dormant once all litigation is completed, and no further action is required of the commission or its members. Again, there's no specific timeframe on that. It's a vote of the commission. And then after we vote, there's 30 days to wind things up. And that's the point where we stop getting paid is once that 30 day time period has passed. Before we're in the dormancy period, we continue to collect paychecks. Once we're in the dormancy period, we stopped collecting paychecks. And again, as I noted, it says that no further action is required of the commissioner, its members. So it seems that timeframe to commit submit dissenting reports is still action of the members and that the commission would still be active until those reports are completed. That's my understanding.
Wishing I can't hear you.
Strike this way. Speaking to the amendment to go to December 31. I would speak against that. The first report done cover all of our work. Through the adoption of all of the maps. We're now dealing with what six senate districts and however many representative districts we did, in a much, much shorter period of time. So I cannot really see how we can justify taking, what, five, six months to come up with a dissenting report when the major portion of the report will be done by September. So I would I would encourage a vote against the amendment.
Is there any more discussion on the amendment to the original motion? Seeing none, we will vote. This is just voting on the amendments to extend the deadline and the original motion to December 31 2024. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.
Aye. Aye.
Aye. Aye.
All those opposed, please raise your hand and say hey, I.
Think we might need a roll call Department of State I think I saw five and four.
Absolutely. This is vote on. This is a vote on the motion to amend the deadline to December 31 2024. So if you would like the deadline extended until December 31 2024. You would vote yes. If you do not want that amended to December 31. You would vote no. I will start with Commissioner EAD.
No.
Commissioner Callum?
I'm sorry. I stepped away. So the deadline for what can you just tell me quickly?
So this is there's a motion on the table to set a deadline of September 12 2024. For all dissenting reports. Then there was a motion to amend that deadline and extend it to December 31 2024. We are currently taking a vote on whether you would like to amend the main motion so that the deadline is December 31 2024. Yes. Commissioner Lane
don't believe she's on any more.
Thank you commissioners at all. I did not catch that. Commissioner let No. Commissioner Muldoon.
Okay. Commissioner Callahan. Can I get your vote on the motion to amend the deadline for dissenting reports to December 31 2024. The original motion has a deadline of September 12 to 2024. So this is to amend that to December 31.
Yes.
With that vote, we have a tie, so the motion fails.
So I'd like to make a motion to amend the deadline to December 15 2024.
So I can then
I'd like to speak to it, chair.
Go ahead. So
it's kind of shocking to me that, honestly, anyone would vote NO to this. Like I said, we were given six months for the last dissenting reports to prepare them. There's no timeline in the Constitution. You guys get to collect a paycheck while I'm working on the dissenting report. And, you know, I've I've told you, that's not enough time for me if September and so it just kind of sharp practice, that the commission would, would seek to vote against a simple request to extended deadlines to accommodate a commissioner who's asking for it. So again, I'm asking you for December 15. I may get it done before that. I mean that but you know, I think it's a reasonable request, given the time that it took to prepare the last dissenting reports. And, you know, I don't understand what the objection to it would be honestly, it's it seems spiteful to me.
missioner Lott call the question.
Doesn't look like there's discussion, more discussion. You'd like to save us the vote, Commissioner. Sure. Thank you. Okay, let's vote on the amendments. Commissioners extending the deadline to December 15 2024. Can we get a roll call, please?
Absolutely. So this is a motion to extend that this. The deadline for dissenting reports to December 15 2024. It was moved by commissioners to tell us supported by Commissioner Wagner. We will start this round with Commissioner cologne. Yes. Commissioner Lang Oh, sorry. She is not on. Commissioner let No. Commissioner Muldoon? Yes. Commissioner Orton?
Commissioner Weiss All right. No. Thank you Commissioner Andrade. I did not hear you commissioner on Friday.
I'm not entirely sure what is going on with your sound today. Can you try one more time or can you do a thumbs up or thumbs down that we could see for the public record?
Thank you.
I've recorded your vote as a no. Commissioner Callahan. Yes, Commissioner curry. Yes. And Commissioner IID. Now
with a vote of six to six the motion fails
Hello
because Mr. Fink still online and available Yes, sir.
I am.
Yeah. So I have a question for you, Mr. Fang. Commissioners have a right under the Constitution to submit a dissenting report, which is why we were given the time we needed last time to submit a dissenting report. So if for some reason I don't make that deadline, I still have a constitutional right to submit the dissenting report, do I not? I mean, they can't take away my constitutional right by trying to set a deadline that I've already told them I cannot meet.
I mean, the Constitution looking at the language right now. Section 16, subsection 16. states as follows. Breach adopted plan, the commission shall issue a report that explains the basis on which the commission made its decisions in achieving compliance with plan requirements and shall include the map and legal description required in part nine of this section. A commissioner who votes against a redistricting plan may submit a dissenting report which shall be issued with the commission's report. So certainly, very Commissioner, who votes against a redistricting plan has a constitutional right to submit a dissenting report. But the provision that indicates that it shall be issued with the commission's report means that it has to be part of the commission's report. And it's certainly within the Commission's discretion to set a deadline for when it's going to publish that report. So that falls within the Commission's right to govern itself and and operate under its rules of procedure. So I mean, obviously, any commissioner can do whatever they want in terms of publishing something on their own, after the fact if they want, but in terms of making it part of the constitutional report, it has to be included within the commission's report.
Right, but if I submit it at a later date, don't they just have to reissue the report? It's required to be included?
It's required to be included within the commission's report. But if the commission has already issued its report, pursuant to the Commission's right to set deadlines, and you know, govern how it wants to, because I mean, theoretically, under the hypothetical that you're you're describing now, five years from now, a commissioner could decide that they want to submit their dissenting report, and it then becomes part of the Commission's record, I don't think that that's a reasonable interpretation of the constitutional provision. I think the kind of the Constitution gives the commission the ability and the right, and the obligation to govern itself, and to set rules and to set deadlines that are reasonable. I'm not speaking as to what that reasonable deadline is here. I'm just saying that it is certainly within the Commission's purview to set a deadline for when it's going to issue its report. And, you know, I mean, the two months from now 60 days, you know, when, again, a lot of these issues have already been really discussed fairly extensively, as part of the public record. To me doesn't seem to be, you know, unreasonable. But again, I defer to the Commission as to when it wants to set that particular deadline. But it's certainly within the Commission's right to to set such a deadline.
So it seems you're taking a position that the Commission can then silence dissenting reports by setting a deadline that someone says they can't meet. That's kind of what it sounds like you're saying to me? No,
not at all. I mean, absolutely. You know, the commissioner has the right to submit a dissenting report that goes within the commission's report. And, you know, the Commission decides that a particular timeframe is reasonable. Again, we're not talking about the commission saying you've got 24 hours to submit your dissenting report, we're talking about a couple of months here, which, to me, again, seems to be fairly reasonable. But again, I defer to the Commission as to what the commission deems to be appropriate in terms of the logistics of putting all this together and getting the materials together and compiling them into a report. And, again, if the commission wants to set that deadline out a couple of months, fine, who wants to extend it beyond that? Fine, too, but to have this I think what you're asking about would be some sort of unlimited amount of time for a dissenting commissioner to submit their dissenting report. Doesn't seem to me to be You have a reasonable interpretation of that constitutional provision.
I would like to make a motion at this time to extend that to amend the original motion to extend the deadline to December. We'll say December 1 2024.
Is there a second?
Second?
All right, excuse me, Commissioner eat. We just want to make sure the cameras are on for our ASL interpreters. So if they can do a camera check, that would be greatly appreciated. Perfect, thank you.
All right. Any discussion on the amendment to the motion commissioners? Hearing none, we'll vote can we get a roll call please?
Commissioner Orton Stan.
Commissioner ortom. Sorry,
I hand this up. So all of this discussion kind of goes to my original question of timeline. My only concern with this is that we can't drag it out forever. So we are expecting to go dormant soon. As soon as we get all of our work done. So I see the conflict between giving commissioners a chance to get their their dissenting report, should they wish to do one into the commission report. But we also need to respect taxpayer money that we are functioning with and end as soon as we can. So it seems to me that we can't just drag this out to the next fiscal year we need to end and like like Commissioner let said, it's not the whole body of work that would be dissented it would be just these two quick redraws that we had to do on 13 districts.
Thank you, Commissioner Orton. Commissioner Bella, I see your hand but then I think you took it down. Do you have anything to add? No. All right, commissioners. Atella.
Yeah, I think Commissioner Orton, like I said, we were given six months before. And I think, you know, without you having awareness into my personal situation, this is not something I'm going to be able to do by September, it's just not going to happen. I'm not going to get into the specifics during a public meeting, you're welcome to call me and talk to me about it. But I am going to require additional time. And I'm asking for the commission to be reasonable. And give me the time that I'm going to need I don't think that's an unreasonable request, given that I'm asking for less time than we had last time. So yeah.
We should have a lot more.
I'd like to give Rebecca some extra time I just And like she said, I don't know her personal. But can we like come in the middle of what we have and what she had, maybe be before the holidays, you know, wrap up before Thanksgiving, which would be the middle of November, it's two weeks shorter than she just said. I got the feeling that she's gonna keep cutting the time until we give her an extension. So I would just like to change the time I'd like to give her some additional time. But I don't think we need through December. I don't think we need you know, like the middle of between when it is now and the end of the year. And I do understand that wanting to go into the fiscal year is that the major reason that we picked September 1
I'm not quite sure why that original date was picked. I'd like to be done before the holiday season personally. Yes. Okay with mid November,
something like that.
late November
mesh, I think I saw Commissioner Andrade.
Did you have something I
thought I saw your hand with no one.
I was just gonna say mid November.
All right, Commissioner curry.
I agree with Commissioner Boulet that we should allow at least some time to give to Rebecca. Commissioner, Rebecca, so I think we should go at least to November.
Sure, Hello.
Sorry. Now there's like a weird fax noise in my background. But anyways, I'm fine with the December date like, commissioners to tell us that I just in good faith, this could be anyone if you're asking for an extension. You should have it in though those of us that wants to turn in reports earlier, I'm sure that we can do that. So it's not that we're all waiting until December. So yeah, I don't have a problem with making that accommodation.
wishers tell
I am sorry. I
said I withdraw. Sorry. Commissioner Orton.
Yeah, just another timeline question. So after. So say we vote, you know, a certain date and November, whatever.
And then someone gets
there, or everyone who wants to a dissenting report gets the report in by that date. Then what does the timeline look after that look like after that? Would we we don't have to vote on any dissenting reports. So it would still need to be added into the to the commission report and then submitted. For sure, a lot of Mr. Woods me.
peek into the timeline. If if the timeline were December 1, then that would complete all of our business. And then the anticipation on the dormancy was it will probably take 30 to 60 days to wrap everything up from there. Now might be quicker, but that that's what would probably be reasonable period of time.
So me we don't get sued again. Thank you.
Okay, Commissioner has to tell the motion on the floor is yours. Do you want to keep it? Have you have it and vote on it? Or do you want to change it at all? Let's
keep it and vote on it. Okay, and it
was December 1 2024? Correct? Yes. All right. Can we get a roll call vote, please. Motion
before you is to amend the main motion setting a deadline for dissenting reports to December 1 Rather than September 12 2024. I will begin this round with Commissioner let
See, Commissioner Lang. Oh, you got it. Perfect. Can you give me your vote on amending the deadline? Yes. Thank you. And I apologize that I missed you. With a vote of nine yes to four. No, the motion carries. So the main motion is approved.
Oh, that was the amendment to the motion. Yeah, we gotta do
that. Thank you.
The amendment. Lots of amendments. All good. Appreciate your help. And all those roll call votes. All right, commissioners. We now have we still have the main motion on the table with the deadline of December 1 2020. For
Commissioner let you
have a question of executive director woods now that we've pushed the date out for the Rebecca, commissioners tell us report. Do you want do you think it would be Who've you would be in the best interest of the commission to move the date for the report can be done.
I will still keep working on it. You know what's the cord and then all we would have to do is just add so it's fine. It's not impacting Me at all, because all of the information is on the website is just compiling it into a report. So that's not going to impact me. We will be just add hers when we receive it. And the commission would vote on, obviously the report as is without voting on her portion. So that doesn't impact me.
I have a question for Mr. Frank before we even before we vote on the main motion, and that's because we're in this unjoined remedial process is a commission report and dissenting report even necessary. Yeah. All right. That was
the question. Yeah, no, we we considered that and reviewed it, you know, reviewed the constitutional language. And, yes, the Commission issues a plan, whether it's remedial or otherwise, the commission should comply with its constitutional obligation to issue a report.
All right. Thank you for the information. All right, any other discussion before we go on the main motion?
Go ahead and vote. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say Hi,
Carrie, I apologize. Could I have the motion? Repeated. Now? I wasn't present when the initial motion was made. Just so I know what I'm voting on, please. Thank you.
Of course, Commissioner lane. It's no problem. Department of State, can we get a readout of the motion as amended.
So Commissioner, laying that motion and all commissioners. The motion before you is to set a deadline for commissioners to submit dissenting reports, if any are to be submitted, and the deadline is now December 1 2024. In the motion, so you're voting on a December 1 2024 deadline for any dissenting reports. Thank you
Okay,
all those in favor of the motion please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye.
Any opposed? All right, the eyes habit and the motion is adopted.
Okay, next on the agenda is new business item six C may finance may financial reports.
If there's no objection, commissioners, I'll ask Executive Director woods to facilitate the next three items. New business C, D, and E may financial report June financial report and the financial year 24. Amended budgets. Are there any objections? Seeing none, Mr. Woods, the floor is yours.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, commissioners. Just an update. I want to share with you the financial report. When we look at the May financial report. This is where we are $172,037.70 in the hole. As you know, we did submit a fiscal year budget supplemental request in February to be acted on as I shared earlier it was approved in June. But this is where we are. You can see our costs. A lot of it related to our pending litigation as it relates to AG case and having meetings in May. With regards to the cost that we have. I believe almost everything is in here on some of the bills. We're still waiting to receive some bills that we haven't received yet. But I'm working with our inside three, we went over everything. And as far as we know, mostly all of the bills are in there are a few outstanding bills, but not that much. But this is kind of where we are for May. Um, with regards to our spending. Our total expenses were $300,309.34 and we were in the hole. Obviously we didn't as I shared earlier, we did not pay our invoices. We held invoices out so we were in the hole in May because we do use the accrual system if you remember when we went through our audit process with Commissioner Verlet we talked about the cruel system versus the cash system. And so in May, we did as predicted, rent ran out of money on the book side, even though we have cash in the bank of $172,037.70. And in June, we still have some bills that are outstanding, including our bills from abacus. The one for technology usually comes in with the July financial report, which comes in August. But this is these are bills that we have as relates to our mapping. And this should take us total expenses at this time, just like it was in May, we still have some outstanding were $233,044.31. And that left us in the hole of 405,005 2201. Once again, I do want to stipulate for both May and June, these are the invoices that we have received at this time. And we do have some outstanding invoices that have not been paid. So when everything is said and done, I expect that number to go up. Past possibly $50,000 Total 40 to $50,000. But we'll see. And with regards to that, once we get the money from the state budget office deposit into our account, we will be paying all of those bills that we have been holding so that we do have cash flow. Um, if there's any questions on the May or the June, financial reports Commissioner eat I can take him at this time.
Are there any questions? Commissioners?
I don't see any Mr. Woods, would you like to continue to the supplement?
Sure. Thank you.
Okay, this
is the supplemental amount. This is $6,662,400. This was basically we asked at times two, we asked them for the additional money due to pending litigation. We have $870,000. This includes staff salary, as well as 13 salaries by the commissioners. This is a budget this is not what people actually received. But what the budget was based on I want to be clear on that was 13 salaries at 25% of the governor salary. That includes the vendor service fees and taxes, the rate changes to 35%. When mapping. Once again, this is the budgeted amount, not what people actually received. And then the staff salaries is flooded the executive director and event planner slash administrative assistant, we had increase in travel costs, obviously, because we have public hearings in person meetings. And this is for business related travel $100,000. The technology costs looks like that's going to be possibly down. So we'll wait to see what happens when we receive our final bill, but there could be some cost savings there. And with regards to technology, our meeting costs are anything related to having a meeting where the sign language translation, close caption. Our in person meetings are audiovisual, all of that relates to meeting costs. If you're going to 25,000 Then we have 5.2 million and consultants or, and let me explain what that means our litigation councils that 2.5 We're projecting for this year. The plaintiff's counsel is the amount of money that we're working on in terms of settling with the plaintiffs. And so we believe that we can pay some of that money out of this fiscal year budget, and the rest of what we owe out of next year's fiscal year's budget. So any savings or anything that we have, will be to offset the amount of money we owe the plaintiff's counsel and the Ag case. The local councils think Bresnik, the special Masters is the revealing special master and the mapping special master cost that the Court said the commission had to pay. And that's $190,000 for $2,000 for election data services for this fiscal year $300,000 For the Voting Rights Council that from October to the end of December, that was federal compliance. And then as you know, from January to the present, we are with Baker Hostetler, and so there's some additional costs there. Public relations were the firm's that we hired during the mapping process, but legal fees was budgeted on With regards to Commissioner, the notice to vacate proceedings, I should say that took place earlier. Um, that's where that's coming from and the professional services deals with our accounting group. Our advertising deals with the promotion that we did during the during the mapping process. And then our office supplies dealt with postage copies, toner, and printing of the posters that you saw on the back, doing our our commission meetings and public hearings, that gives us a grand total of $662,400. So I just want to be clear of where the money's going and need a motion to approve this fiscal year 24 amended budget. If there's any questions I can take him at this time.
Commissioner Orton Yeah,
I just have a question about the special master cost. So that was 190,000. I wonder if that includes this Senate redraw special master review as well
includes both. Okay, thank you.
So I will make the motion to it except this revised budget
packet.
There is a motion in a second. Is there any discussion on the motion commissioners?
Hearing none,
we'll move to vote. All those in favor of the motion? Please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. The eyes habit and the motion is adopted. All right, thank you, Mr. Woods, like to take a moment to thank everyone that we work with for being patient on the payments. Now that we have the funds, we will share, get them out. And I'd also like to thank the State Legislature for doing their constitutional duty and appropriating us the funds that we need to get this job done.
Commissioner II just so we're clear. We do not have the funds that's been approved, but we do not have
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Woods. We're on pace to get them correct. Yes. Wonderful.
Okay, next up on the agenda is Item number seven approval of the minutes. We've had quite a log of minutes logged up that we haven't approved yet from May 14 Up until June 26. Are there any motions regarding these minutes commissioners?
I would move to approve the minutes as a group subject to any corrections additions or deletions that may be presented here. Second,
we have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as a group. Does that include all of them? Commissioner lap from May 14 to June 26?
That's correct.
Okay, is there any discussion on the motion,
push to eat? I just want to I noticed something after we did a review of the minutes that Commissioner Wagner on May 21 actually left at 11:40am. And that 11:40pm So if someone is willing to make correct that typo, that would be great. That's I can't make the motion obviously.
move we make that correction. Second.
All those in favor of the amendment to correct the minutes. Please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ice habit will now move back to the original motion to adopt the minutes as a group. All those in favor of the motion please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Please raise your hand and say nay. The eyes habit and the minutes are adopted. Next on the agenda is the executive directors report. Without objection I'll ask my CRC director woods the third to provide this report. Is there any objection? Please proceed. Mr. Woods. Thank
you in the interest of time, Mr. Chair, I can defer my report to the next meeting. A lot of the business items we've already presented.
All right. Do we have a legal liaison report today, Commissioner that? We do?
There is no objection, I'll ask our legal liaison Commissioner let to provide his report. Are there any objections commissioners?
Go ahead. Mr. Lapp.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was a situation that came to the attention of our counsel. Nate Fink. He received two letters, one from the Deputy Chief of Staff of the AFL CIO, and a second letter from the Council of
the Michigan Senate.
And I will read the pertinent parts to you for the ease, the Deputy Chief of Staff for the AFL CIO, Connor would wrote to Edward I misspoke, not Nate, who wrote to Edward. And it says in pertinent part that it came to my attention today that recently commissioners a tele sent an email to a number of partisan elected officials in western Wayne County, soliciting their input on a mapping process, and apparently requesting that they support her preferred arrangement of the areas for State Senate. He acknowledges that I do not have the email. There. He goes on to say that there are several people who are interpreting this as evidence that the commission is not truly independent, and they may try to make some noise about it. He went on to say that he strongly disagreed with their interpretation and urging them to let the mapping process play out without interference. The letter from
Excuse me.
The letter from general counsel for the Michigan Senate was along the same lines that was sent to Mr. Fink says I write to you in your capacity as counsel for the Michigan independent citizens redistricting commission. It has come to my attention that yesterday Commissioner Rebecca as a tele send a group email to Senator Dana Hankey and several other elected officials requesting feedback on proposed mapping changes as part of the Commission's public comment period. As you know, independence is at the very core of the commission work. The members of the Senate Democratic Caucus deeply respect their the independent nature of this process and wish to avoid any potential appearance of self interest as a Commission considers changes to communities in their district. As such, we declined the invitation to provide comments. So this is how the situation came to the attention of the Commission. The background is that commissioners that tele sent out these emails to as a letter, say elected officials, some in the county and townships and two or more in the state, Senate or and or representatives saying that in essence we were mapping and that if you want to see what we're doing, here's a link go look at it. And if you want to see what I commissioners Adela was doing go look at this. No soliciting such input. We've certainly had a lot of input in the public people coming in. We've had elected representatives come in and say this. I'm not aware that we have taken the liberty on our own email, not our State email, but our own email and sent letters out requesting comments. That's really not the issue. The issue is by commissioners, the tele doing that the people who wrote these letters obviously think that there's some there may be something wrong. And so it it's not that it is wrong. What it is, is it makes it look like it's wrong. In other words, it's the appearance of not being transparent. It's appearance of train of one commissioner and thus all commissioners trying to put their thumb on the scale and tip the balance somehow in favor of some preferred elected official. Clearly, that's not something that we as the commission condone, at least I don't think we do. And it's certainly not within our rules that we're supposed to do that. So this is what has come out. And I certainly want to, I mean, all the mapping is done now, hopefully. And so, the point of this report is to draw the attention of the commission and public because this is a public record now. That we, as the Commissioner, at least certainly I, as a commissioner, did not condone this type of activity, it draws an inference that it's not as transparent as it should be. And not appropriate.
That's the end of my reports. Thank you, Commissioner lab. Mr. Wagner. Um, yes,
and question let I have a question. And forgive me, I've been sick. But did you provide those letters that you received to the rest of us? And if you did, can you direct me to what Gmail to find them? And please,
direct you to which are where to find them? Yes.
If you have something to us?
I don't believe that. These were published. Nate. Are these sent out to everybody? The letters, though,
but the letters that you referenced? Yeah. That they were shared with the Commission. Okay, I can get you the dates. Thank you. They were just they were forwarded on the mess the letter that I had got from the Senate general counsel,
and asked for them to be published. You're only a liaison? Shellac. You're the rest of us. So. Um, thank you.
You're welcome. Michelle is top. Yeah, Commissioner
let just for the public record, I provided copies of both emails to the full commission. Do you have copies of those emails for
Charlotte? Yes, I do have copies of so how
did I? How did I request that people provide their feedback in those emails?
You told them that they could comment back and gave them the emails and how to do it, you requested that they take a look at those look at the ones that we can look at the ones that you were doing and provide any feedback they thought appropriate. I asked
them to provide feedback via the public comment portal or directly on the maps, not to me specifically, I specifically directed them to the public comment portal, or to go to maps and put comments there, or they can email us at redistricting@michigan.com and provide comments there. So at no point did I ask them to respond back to me at all, I have some alerted them to the fact that maps are happening, ask them to provide their feedback, and told them how to provide it to the full commission, not to me, I also want to point out that the Constitution specifically says in Section 11, a commissioner may communicate about redistricting matters with members of the public to gain information relevant to performance of his or her duties. If such communication occurs in writing, which is exactly what I did. Not only is it acceptable, it's expected and authorized under the Constitution. And my area, there was little to no communications going out about the fact that we were redistricting. And those redistricting plans were going to affect the communities that I live in. I don't think there's anything inappropriate to reaching out to my township supervisor, my township clerk, and a township clerk's and supervisors and other communities along with the people who are in the House or Senate, to advise them that this is happening, and seek feedback. And my intention with that is that they would communicate with their constituents, and advise people to provide feedback, which is what I was looking for. I am not the person who draws maps for politicians. There's actually no evidence that anything like that has ever occurred with me. What I was simply trying to do is to gain information relevant to the performance of my duties, which is the decision on which map to vote for I will also point out that at the time that I sent out that communication, we had draft maps in place. We weren't currently drawing maps, and the purpose of it was to find out did they want Plymouth with Canton? Did they want Plymouth with Livonia? Did they want Plymouth with Westlands did they want Plymouth was Van Buren Township, what was their preferred configuration of the area people who live in that community? And the fastest way to get that message out? Since our communications department was not targeting any communication As towards the people who lived in that area was to reach out to the politicians because they already have a built in network that would allow people in the community to comment to the Commission in whole, not to me directly. And then I would also point out that we've had multiple multiple situations where we've had particular commissioners who have done the same thing. And Anthony eat in particular has been on Twitter, and on Reddit, asking people to provide feedback. He's been nobody's ever complained about that. He had a meeting, where he specifically was pushing a particular map, which actually isn't prohibited under our rules. So there's no concerns here, you're making much ado about nothing. This is personally motivated to try to slander me for doing my job and doing something that's expressly authorized under the Commission's rules and under the Constitution.
Well, as I said, in my report, what you did is not the question, the result is what is the question? And I didn't write the letters. Obviously, somebody thought that whatever you put out there wasn't appropriate and wrote letters to the executive director and to the attorney saying that this did, in essence, this did not appear to be appropriate and wasn't very transparent. So while you may have had the all of the good intentions that you just claimed, the way you went about it didn't work very well, because we got a letter from the General Counsel of the State Senate and the and the AFL CIO commission. Yeah, it didn't work. And it looks bad. It's not a good look.
It's your opinion. It's your opinion, it didn't look like a border. Yeah, this is just a personal attacks. And it's a violation of our rules of conduct. There's just not a question of you you're using. You're using your, as you said, you're using your liaison role to personally attack someone. That's what you're doing.
Missionary, this is hard for our sign language interpreter. So we need something to take place, please.
They could give me the ability to mute once again, that would be great. Commissioner Orson.
Yeah, I don't. I don't see this as a personal attack. I was very concerned when I receive copies of the letters from the AFL CIO person and the general counsel for the Senate. There's, it's very concerning to me. We we do have the ability to, in writing communicate with public, but not elected officials like that is I thought it was clearly understood by all of us that we don't communicate with elected officials about mapping. And I, I just find it very concerning. And the fact that two people like told on told on the this situation, leads leads me to wonder how many others were there that didn't tell and that just their own action? It's just really concerning, because it does make it look like we as a commission are not being transparent and, you know, deals are going on or something. And I don't like that at all.
Mr. Callahan.
Mr. Callahan, we can I hear you.
I'm sorry, I was very good. I said appearances matter. And while technically that's Commissioner led said, there may have been no violation of the strict rules. By appearances, there definitely was a less than forthcoming and transparent mode of working. The fact that the contact was made to elected officials on personal email, without copying any other members of the Commission just looks bad. It's tainted, it taints the whole commission. If we want to maintain the trust of the citizens of the state of Michigan. We have to be above those kinds of actions. What we do matters, the appearance matters out we lose the trust of the state, and that that takes the commission not just for us, but for all the Commission's that come after us. So It was completely inappropriate. And it was it was really a betrayal of the other commission members because it makes us all look bad. Now the whole public is sitting out there saying, Well, what are the other Commissioners doing that we just didn't get an email about? It doesn't look good. Whether it's technically against Ebola not, I think knew it didn't look good, which is why it went on a personal email. So that's it was just inappropriate. I'm very disappointed that that happened.
All right, commissioners and Tala.
Yeah, it just it's astonishing to me that in the same meeting, where we were talking about a notice dealing with a commissioner who was alleged to have drawn districts for candidates of office, and you had no concerns with that, you wouldn't even hold a hearing on it for crying out loud. You are actually accusing someone of being inappropriate for following the Constitution and seeking feedback and writing. Nowhere in the constitution does it say politicians are not members of the public. And we have had many, many politicians come and provide feedback to us. If you remember, there were literally people losing their minds about Molnar contacting us and I'm drawing a blank on the other guy's name who ran for I think it was attorney general governor at one point he was a Republican, also came and provided feedback to us. So politicians are members of the public candidates of offense are members of the public. The point where it crosses the line is when you're doing drawing districts for them, which is what somebody else did, and nobody's real concerned about that. That is what damages the reputation of the commission. Again, this is just a witch hunt. This is an attempt to make you guys feel better to try to find something bad that I supposedly did, because you're still all mad that I testified against you in the ag trial. That's the only way.
submission is baseless accusations. No, no, no.
All right, everyone. Since my name was brought up, I'll just respond quickly, the allegations that commissioners Atella was alleged only by her and y'all can go read the response that I put out about them, they're false, they're completely slanderous. She's just trying to make false equivalencies that don't exist. And we've already dealt with them. Nothing that I've done has resulted in a Senate lawyer, or anyone else emailing us. So I don't appreciate the false equivalencies. And I think we all see through it. I'm gonna go to Commissioner Kalam. And then I'd appreciate if we can move on from this topic. I think everybody has made their point loud and clear by now, if we want to do something as a commission further about this, we can or we can leave it be as it is, after having this discussion. I do appreciate the comments that everyone made. And I appreciate everyone trying to keep them as tame as possible. Push your column.
I just wanted to add very quickly, I am not mad at your personal decision to do whatever you want to do, in terms of fighting for the maps, the old maps, not fighting for the maps, whatever the case, that is water under the bridge. I think though, the distrust that commissioners Atella continues to have and hangs on to the fact that it's something personal, was driven by our decision to you know, so not invite us like if commissioners Attila had decided to ask the other Commissioners like, Hey, this is something that I'm thinking about, or if there was more trust in the commission to invite us in the process of actually be collaborative of the maps, that I think that would have been a totally different situation. But the decision to specifically seek in a deceptive way, opinions of political figures, I think, is unconscionable. And I know that there were allegations that I did that, you know, I don't like to beat around the bush. So I'm going to be very that's just completely baseless. I'm gonna just be very upfront. There's no proof. You all could look into my background, look into the relationships that I have with people, I always share what I know just like I share my feelings about the crane map and where that came from. So it wasn't just a couple of commissioners that found fault with that decision and commissioners that tele it was just about the whole commission maybe with the exception of I can't speak for Commissioner Wagner or Commissioner laying but I know everyone had very strong feelings and if it was up to me wouldn't have been able to participate because it's a conflict of interest and map process you I wouldn't I did not feel comfortable, though I had positive feelings about your map, I did not feel comfortable with you engaging in that process. Because you talk quite specifically and frequently about how decisions are made you map offline. And so that it was a horrible Look, I am very hypocritical of you to champion and petition for Anthony EADS removal Commissioner eats removal for whoever he contacts, and then here you are sending emails. So if it was something that was in the constitutional rules, you would have felt very comfortable telling us that initially, but you didn't. And then you did try to save face by having all these follow up with people and you were caught. And so that's okay. But I just wish that you could use this opportunity to not say it's a witch hunt and slander. These are the facts you sent the email. You didn't ask anybody. We weren't supposed to do this. And you would hang someone by their toenails commissioner to tell if they did that. So it's we're just holding you accountable and making it public. Thank you.
Commissioners Atolla.
So I'm not sure what you're talking about with all these emails that I supposedly sent. That's fiction, I sent one email to people from Plymouth Canton, one email to Inkster that's it. And I didn't email anybody on the commission about it, why would I don't need to, we can communicate with the public where however we want as long as it's in writing, which, frankly, is something I've done before because I actually reached out to members of the Jewish community during our last mapping, and actually had a editorial published in the Jewish news where I was seeking feedback relative to our maps, then to again, no one had a problem with it, then. So this is simply more of the same. This is behavior that is specifically allowed under the Constitution, you reach out to members of the public, which includes political officials, by the way, you asked for their feedback, you're trying to gain information relevant to your job, which is exactly what I was doing. And I directed them to provide comments via the public comment portal. And as well, via the map itself, where you can click and add comments there. And then they could also email redistricting@michigan.gov. There's nothing inappropriate about that whatsoever. And, you know, all the shade that's been thrown during this meeting, you guys on one hand, when it's thrown at someone else, you're all out your hackles are all up but it's again, been a consistent pattern of it's okay to bash on Commissioner Lang, Fisher, Wagner or myself, repeatedly since the trial. It's a very clear pattern. So yeah, I did nothing inappropriate. I honestly don't really care if you guys think I did, because I know I'm following the Constitution. And, you know, I don't really care if you think it's an odd if this is more for the public, because there's nothing inappropriate about what I did. And everybody knows it. We're allowed to reach out to members of the public just like Commissioner II did with the Chaldean community. Yeah, no issues with that. Yeah, no issues with them talking to the guy from Taylor over the telephone either died mitad it in the meeting that he had spoken with Commissioner eat about mapping the Taylor area, no concerns there, even though that was not in writing. But again, you want to selectively point out something I did following the Constitution. It's just ridiculous.
Commissioner Weiss.
Thank you very much, commissioners. Atella. For your opinion. The problem I see is we had two other individuals who you sent letters to who have given their opinion that you did something wrong, or questionable. So I guess that's all you have to look at. And then form your own opinion from there. Thank you.
All right. Just
got an ad for the record. The phone call I got from the gentleman from Taylor, we did not discuss mapping issues. I told him, I directed him to the website, to our posted meeting notice so he could come and talk to us in person. Let the whole commission nobody thought Oh,
so you did the same thing I did. You did the same thing I did in the email. Thanks.
All right. Okay.
Thank you, Commissioner, let for your reports. Please keep us updated. And if anything else happens about this matter in the future. We'll now move on to item 12. Future agenda items. Are there any agenda items commissioners like to have added to future agendas? I just have one during this process. We did a lot of a lot of public engagement to areas including West land and but you know, lots of areas within the Tri County Metro Detroit area area. And I'd like to see where everyone, you know, did a presentation at spoke, you know, that kind of thing? Can we get that Mr. Woods? Yes, we
have a request out to one of our vendors to verify that what we have is there. And I actually did have some of that as part of my report today. But time didn't do it. So yes, we can do that for August, we'll make an agenda item under new business, so everyone can see it. Wonderful.
It might be a good idea once we hear from the court on if they affirm the map that the Commission adopted or not to update those community members on if that happens. Sure.
ambass updates.
I would be remiss if I did not provide a reminder in Sarah's place that early voting for the August primary begins on July 27, if not sooner, that is the constitutionally mandated period. And the primary election date is August 6. If you need any information about where you need to vote, how to vote, absentee ballot voting, who's on your ballot, please go to michigan.gov backslash votes to get all of that information. Thank you.
Thank you, Misha, get out and vote everybody. It is a privilege that we are lucky to have.
correspondence, if any was available was received in advance of our meeting today, along with written public comments to commissioners will now move on to announcements. Are there any announcements?
Yes, Mission eight.
Go ahead. Mr.
Woods.
Thank you just want to remind everyone that the next commission meeting is Thursday, August 15. Thursday, August 15 at 10am. And it will be a virtual meeting. Just so we're all on the same page once again, Thursday, August 15. At 10am.
Thank you, Mr. Woods. As the items on the agenda are complete, and the Commission has no further business. A motion to adjourn is an
order. So move. Second.
We have a motion to adjourn by Commissioner let seconded by Commissioner Weiss All those in favor. Please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. All opposed but raise your hand and say name where
