Rules & Legislation
Sept 14, 2023
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jestin D. Johnson FROM: William A. Gilchrist
City Administrator Director, Planning and
Building
SUBJECT: Redistricting Commission – Charter
Report
DATE: August 14, 2023
City Administrator Approval: Date:
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends That The City Council Receive An Informational Report On The 2021 Redistricting Commission’s Charter Report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In February 2022, the Oakland Redistricting Commission, comprised of 12 members including Benjie Achtenberg, Amber Blackwell, Gloria Crowell, Lilibeth Gangas, Stephanie Goode, Masoud Hamidi, Paul Marshall, Diana Miller, Tejal Shah, Bharat Singh, Jan Stevens and Mary Velasco, adopted a new district map for the City of Oakland (City). The new map was adopted after more than a year of training, meetings, and community engagement, in preparation for redrawing the district boundaries for the city’s seven city council and school board districts.
This is the first Charter Report issued by the independent Oakland Redistricting Commission, as mandated by the Oakland City Charter, as amended by Measure DD in 2014. The report addresses the Commission’s goal to conduct a fair, open, and equitable redistricting process in the public forum (see Attachment A, Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2020- 2023).
BACKGROUND / LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The Oakland Redistricting Commission ballot measure was put forth to voters in 2014 as Measure DD. This measure passed with a 61.45 percent vote of “yes.” Oakland’s City Charter was therefore amended to include Section 220: Redistricting of School Board and City Council Districts.
A summary of Measure DD
provided by City Attorney’s Office describes the Commission’s mission, purpose and procedural requirements as follows:” The current redistricting process Aug 31, 2023
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Redistricting Commission-Charter Report
Date: August 14, 2023 Page 2
Rules & Legislation
Sept 14, 2023
occurs every 10 years starting in 2021. The Commission consists of thirteen (13) members appointed in accordance with the procedure specified in Measure DD.
Measure DD specifies that the City Administrator will select the screening panel based on criteria established by regulations drafted by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council.
Then the screening panel will select the most qualified applicants who reflect the geographic, racial, ethnic, and economic diversity of the City; the pool must include at least two applicants from each Council district. The six selected commissioners will then meet during open and public meetings to select seven additional Commissioners and two alternate members from the remaining applicant pool. Commissioners are ineligible for a period of ten years beginning from the date of appointment, to hold elective public office for the City .
ANALYSIS AND POLICY ALTERNATIVES
In 2013, a group of Oakland residents began to discuss the possibility of creating an independent redistricting commission, largely modeled after the State of California citizen’s Redistricting Commission, which had already been established. As a result of these discussions and suggestions, the Oakland Redistricting Commission ballot measure was put forth to voters in 2014 as Measure DD. This measure passed with a 61.45 percent vote of “yes.” The City Charter was therefore amended to include Section 220: Redistricting of School Board and City Council Districts.
The thirteen commissioners were tasked to approve a final plan by December 31, 2021. The Commission held dozens of public meetings and workshops, including ten public hearings at which the Commission received public comment on draft maps. Throughout the Commission’s work, many dozens of people participated in public hearings and meetings, and over a hundred unique speakers provided testimony. The Commission received more than a thousand pages of written feedback from the public, and multiple draft maps were submitted by the public.
Beginning September 2021, when usable census data became available, the Commission drafted, reviewed and revised nearly a dozen of its own draft maps, and conducted 12 meetings and seven workshops in an attempt to refine and adopt a final draft map.
Despite these exhaustive and good faith efforts, the Commission was not able to adopt a final plan with the required super-majority vote (9 commissioners must agree on the final plan) and did not meet the deadline set forth in the Charter by December 31, 2021.
The Commission continued their work by holding special meetings to adopt a map with new district boundaries through the month of February 2022. Draft Map F4 was modified to create Draft Map F5 during a Special Redistricting Commission Meeting held on January 26, 2022.during which the Commission approved the selection of Draft Map F5 for final adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Commission’s budget is determined by the City and is based on a calculation that references the 2013 redistricting budget. The City Charter states: “The City Council shall appropriate funds to meet the operational needs of the Commission and any outreach Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Redistricting Commission-Charter Report
Date: August 14, 2023 Page 3
Rules & Legislation
Sept 14, 2023
program to solicit broad public participation in the redistricting process of at least the amount spent in 2013 on redistricting adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. The City Council shall allocate the pro rata share of the total estimated cost beginning in year 2015 and each year ending in two (2) thereafter, in anticipation of the redistricting year.”
In 2013 An operating budget (Fund (1010), Proj (1001121) Program (IP03) of $175,000 was allocated by the City Council to the Redistricting Commission. An additional $40,000, to be used to hire a community engagement consultant Eastside Arts Alliance, was approved by the City Council on June 24, 2021. There is currently $64,000.00 remaining in the Redistricting Commission’s budget.
PUBLIC OUTREACH / INTEREST
The Commission initially created sub-committees in December 2020 which focused on separate elements of community outreach; however, the Commission soon realized a third-party dedicated community engagement consultant firm was necessary. As gathering restrictions due to necessary COVID protocol began to ease in June 2021, the Commission begin to conduct in- person community outreach including town halls, farmer’s markets, festivals, community organization gatherings and on-line workshops The addition of the community outreach consultant in September 2023 offered to the Commission relief and new challenges for its outreach efforts. Many of the Commission’s outreach tasks were transferred to the consultant in September 2023.
The community engagement consultant developed an outreach strategy and a methodology for capturing results and outcomes, and they performed needed services, such as networking, scheduling, active engagement, new content development and design (see Public Outreach Report, (Attachment B).
Between September 2021 and November 2021, the Commission continued to work towards its outreach goals by contacting and presenting to the public at virtual town hall meetings, which were actively advertised by the outreach consultants. Many stakeholders from across the city hosted and participated in these town halls at various points in time in the process. Those stakeholders included political organizations, civic associations, communities of interest, City Regional Service Centers, Citizens Advisory Boards, and the public. Every member of the Commission participated in virtual townhall meetings complying with the City’s Covid protocols and heard from Oaklanders of their needs, wants, and desires for redistricting
.
Beginning September 19, 2021, the consultant team organized and/or participated in 26 in person and virtual events at locations or times requested by partner nonprofits, Community Based Organizations CBOs, and members of the public including two virtual meetings held on November 8th and 9th 2021 hosted by Allen Temple Baptist Church and Oakland Rising respectively, and an in-person meeting held on November 13 at Lincoln Park in Chinatown.
These were in addition to 42 outreach and engagement events organized directly by Commissioners that began in May 2021. Please see the consultants outreach report in Attachment B
for the dates of each engagement event.
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Redistricting Commission-Charter Report
Date: August 14, 2023 Page 4
Rules & Legislation
Sept 14, 2023
The Redistricting Commission’s engagement opportunities were publicized on the Commission’s website and via email. The total number of persons who participated by providing written comments or mapping responses are as follows:
○ 1,686 pages of written comments were submitted to the Commission through email, including 63 pages containing more than 625 signatures representing the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community in District 2. ○ 500+ oral public comments given at 15 commission hearings. ○ 2,012 members of the public were directly engaged at community events, presentations, and intercept activity by the Commissioners working with CBOs on their own and with the outreach consultant team.
○ 846 online survey responses were submitted
○ 111 online mapping responses were submitted via mapping tool Districtr ○ 100+ physical maps were submitted
○ 5000+ flyers distributed (publications, posters),
○ Social media (messages, images, video) dissemination
○ 150 video views (on YouTube)
○ There was no radio, TV, text, or phone banking (although members of the public could call or email city staff Richard Luna and Corey Alvin who provided support to the Redistricting Commission).
COORDINATION
The preparation of this report occurred in the Planning and Building Department under direction from the City Administrator’s Office.
SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES
Economic: There are no economic opportunities associated with this report.
Environmental: There are no environmental opportunities associated with this report.
Race & Equity: On December 9, 2020, the Commission received a presentation and training from Darlene Flynn, the Director of the Department of Race and Equity, on conducting a racial impact analysis on the City’s redistricting process. Also, on December 29, 2021, Ms. Flynn provided the Commission with her equity perspective prior to the vote to choose the final district map. Ms. Flynn’s perspective was received as a written public comment and can be seen here .
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Consideration of the 2021 Redistricting Commission’s Charter Report does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Redistricting Commission-Charter Report
Date: August 14, 2023 Page 5
Rules & Legislation
Sept 14, 2023
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff Recommends That The City Council Receive An Informational Report On The 2021 Redistricting Commission’s Charter Report.
For questions regarding this report, please contact Corey Alvin, Planner IV, at (510) 238-6316.
Respectfully submitted,
William A Gilchrist
Director, Department of Planning and Building
Prepared by:
Corey Alvin, Planner IV
Bureau of Planning
Attachments (2):
A. Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report
B. Public Outreach Report
Oakland Redistricting
Commission
Charter Report
2020-2023
PAGE 2
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Preface
In February 2022, the Oakland Redistricting Commission adopted a new district map for the City of Oakland.
The new map was adopted after more than a year of training, meetings, and community engagement, in preparation for redrawing the district boundaries for the city’s seven city council and school board districts.
This is the first Charter Report issued by the first independent Oakland Redistricting Commission, as mandated by the Oakland City Charter:
“The Commission shall issue a report that explains the basis on which the Commission made its decisions in achieving compliance with the criteria [sic] and shall include definitions of the terms and standards used in drawing the final plan.”
This report chronicles the timeline of Oakland’s first community-led redistricting process. The report addresses the Commission’s goal to conduct a fair, open and equitable redistricting process in the public forum. If the Commission could achieve this, then it could achieve equitable outcomes for Oaklanders in a fairly drawn map. This goal was tempered by the burden of a steep learning curve, high expectations, abbreviated timelines for deliverables, and the inevitable appearance of political maneuvering. All of these complicated an already complex and highly charged process. This
report identifies the challenges faced by the Commission during an unprecedented global health pandemic, which limited public meetings to virtual teleconferencing, and directly impacted the Commission’s community outreach efforts.
The goal to produce a new citywide map with equitable outcomes for Oaklanders is a direct result of a history of redistricting by politicians and their allies. This history of redistricting has systematically disenfranchised many communities and entire districts from effective representation in our city government. The hope invested in a community-led redistricting process is rooted in the hope for equity.
What does equity mean in the redistricting process?
An equitable district map would address, for each district: population; eligible, registered and likely voters; communities; educational resources; and civic resources. This list is not exhaustive, as the redistricting process revealed.
For each district, its residents should have:
- Access to city resources and services
- Access to city government
- Representation in city government
- Understanding the value in voting
- Participation in the electoral process
PAGE 3
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
The redistricting process is complex. It requires preparation, strategy, planning, budgeting, outreach and compassion. Commissioners require ongoing training, education and an application of that new knowledge in the context of transparency and fairness. A fair and equitable redistricting process requires extensive community efforts that should start far in advance of the release of the census data. It was important to the Commissioners that identifying challenges was balanced with recommendations for addressing those challenges in the future. As Oakland’s mapping process progressed, and as the mandated deadline approached, public comment made it clear there
was concern and frustration with the community outreach efforts made by the Commission. The Commission hopes this report addresses the public’s comments and concerns.
What did we learn from an independent redistricting process?
1. The redistricting process should be conducted in the public forum. All Oaklanders are to be invited and encouraged to participate.
2. The redistricting process can be led by an independent, non-elected group of residents of Oakland.
3. The redistricting process could be fair, equitable and transparent only as a result of extensive community outreach.
4. Public comment should be submitted and shared in multiple ways and should be organized and accessible to the public.
5. Public comment could be weighed alongside statistical data that supports or refutes comments and anecdotes.
6. Milestones can be identified in every stage of the redistricting process. Measurable outcomes can be assessed with every milestone and at every stage of the process.
7. A single map will not make everyone in Oakland happy. However, a single map can make a lot of people happy and a lot more people aware and prepared for the next redistricting.
This Oakland Redistricting Commission is honored to have served the people of Oakland for the past two+ years. We are a group of Oakland residents who volunteered for work that offers an incredible opportunity to participate as non-politicians, for the first time, in a civic, legal, and politically charged process. Fortunately, our work required engaging with Oaklanders who live all over the city. However, we acknowledge that many more Oaklanders were needed to participate. For all who did participate, we credit you with enriching our experience. As the report will testify: to serve our city was an honor, a responsibility, a challenge, and an incredible learning experience.
The Oakland Redistricting Commission
Oakland, California, January 2023
PAGE 4
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Commissioners
Benjie Achtenberg
Amber Blackwell
Daniel Chesmore
Gloria Crowell
Lilibeth Gangas
Shirley Gee
Stephanie Goode
Masoud Hamidi
Paul Marshall Tracy
McKnight Diana
Miller
Tejal Shah Bharat
Singh Jan Stevens
Mary Velasco
PAGE 5
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Table of Contents
Preface Introduction
Committees and Consultants Ad-
Hoc Committees Bylaws
& Procedures
Chair and Vice Chair Selection Consultant
Selection
Government and School Board Committee
Outreach Committee
Communications Committee
Faith-Based Organizations Committee Community-
Based Organizations Committee
Budget and City Staff Training
Meetings
Outreach
Mapping
Summary of Recommendations
A Proposal for Future Commissions Reference
Links
Glossary
PAGE #
PAGE #
PAGE #
PAGE #
PAGE #
PAGE #
PAGE #
PAGE #
PAGE #
PAGE #
PAGE #
PAGE #
PAGE 6
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Introduction
In late 2013, Oakland residents began to discuss the possibility of creating an independent Redistricting Commission for our city, largely modeled after the State of California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which had already been established. The purpose of this city commission would be to attain a transparent and apolitical process of redrawing lines for the election of the Oakland City Council Members and the OUSD School Board Directors. The organizations and individuals present during these public discussions, in which anyone could participate, included The League of Women Voters, the Urban Strategies Council, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Action, Oakland Rising, and City Council members Libby Schaff and Dan Kalb.
Additionally, guidance was provided from the Irvine Foundation and the Greenlining Institute. A larger net was cast for public input using online surveys. As a result of these discussions and suggestions, the Oakland Redistricting Commission ballot measure was put forth to voters in 2014 as Measure DD. This measure passed with a 61.45% vote of “yes”. The Charter of the City of Oakland was therefore amended to include Section 220: Redistricting of School Board and City Council Districts.
To explain the redistricting process, and how the Oakland Redistricting Commissioners are selected, here is a summary of Measure DD, provided by City Attorney Barbara Parker:
“Every ten years beginning in 2021, the Commission would conduct a redistricting process. The Commission’s meetings would be open and public with notice and agendas required by state open meeting law and Oakland’s Sunshine Ordinance. Commissioners would be required to disclose all contacts regarding matters related to the Commission’s redistricting role and process.
The Commission would consist of thirteen (13) members who would be appointed in accordance with the procedure specified in the measure. Membership on the Commission would be open to all individuals who resided in Oakland for three years preceding the date of their application.
The City Administrator would manage the application process, ensuring that the pool of applications meets specified standards of diversity and qualifications and that the qualified pool includes at least forty (40) individuals and at least three applicants from each existing City Council district. Persons with “conflicts of interest” as defined by the measure would be ineligible for membership on the Commission and would be removed from the pool.
Next, a three-member screening panel composed of a retired judge, a volunteer law student or public policy student and a local, nonprofit good government organization would narrow the pool to thirty (30) applicants. The City Administrator would select the screening panel based on criteria established by regulations drafted by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council. The screening panel would select the most qualified applicants to perform the Commission’s duties who reflect the geographic, racial, ethnic, and economic diversity of the City of Oakland; the pool must include at least two applicants from each Council district.
Then the City Clerk would randomly draw six names.
PAGE 7
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Finally, the six randomly selected Commissioners would select seven additional Commissioners and t w o alternate members from the remaining applicant pool. “A Commissioner shall be ineligible, for a period of ten years beginning from the date of appointment, to hold elective public office for the City of Oakland . A member of the Commission shall be ineligible, for a period of four years beginning from the date of appointment, to hold appointive public office for the City of Oakland or Oakland Unified School Board, to serve as paid staff for or as a paid consultant to Oakland City Council, or any member of the City Council or Oakland School Board, to receive a non -competitively bid contract with the City of Oakland, or to register as a lobbyist. This four -year ban on having a paid consultancy or entering non -competitively bid contracts applies to the member individually and all entities for which the member is a controlling person ”.
The City Administrator’s office followed protocol per Section 220 of the Oakland City Charter. The three- person screening panel conducted interviews from June 23rd through July 16th, 2020, and subsequently narrowed the qualified field to thirty applicants.
On Wednesday, July 22nd, 2020, the names of the first six Commissioners were randomly selected: Jan Stevens (District 1), Benjie Actenberg (District 2), Lilibeth Gangas (District 3), Diana Miller (District 4), Stephanie Goode (District 5), and Mary Velasco (District 6).
These six Commissioners, over the course of several meetings and with use of criteria and data around geographic, racial, ethnic, age, and economic diversity, selected the remaining seven Commissioners: Tracy McKnight (District 1), Shirley Gee (District 2), Amber Blackwell (District 3), Paul Marshall (District 4), Martha Hernandez (District 6), Gloria Crowell (District 7), Tejal Shah (District 7); and two Alternate Commissioners:
Masoud Hamidi (District 5), and Daniel Chesmore (District 6).
In early January 2021, Martha Hernandez resigned, and Masoud Hamidi became a voting member of the Commission. Bharat Singh (District 5) was chosen as a new Alternate Commissioner. A year later, in January of 2022, Tracy McKnight resigned, and Bharat Singh became a voting member of the Commission.
PAGE 8 Committees
and Consultants
PAGE 8
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Committees and Consultants
Ad-Hoc Committees
The Commission created ad-hoc committees early in its tenure, to help the Commission perform its duties and to perform work such as research and investigation, planning and strategy, and outreach and networking. The first committees were:
- Bylaws and Rules of Procedure;
- Community Outreach;
- Communications; and
- Consultant Selection.
Additional ad-hoc committees were later formed to better support community outreach and networking, These were the Government & School Board, Faith-Based Organizations, Community-Based Organizations, and the Media committees.
By majority vote, the Commission could delegate work or assignments to the Ad-Hoc Committees. Committees presented outcomes, deliverables and additional work. The Commission could also vote to amend and/or approve draft documents and scopes of work for each committee. The Chair also had discretion to create new ad- hoc committees based on the need for additional work.
Although there was not a specific ad -hoc committee formed for the Chair and Vice Chair selections, we have included a section describing the process and outcomes following the Bylaws & Procedures committee description.
Bylaws & Procedures
This Committee, with city staff assistance, would be responsible for drafting and proposing bylaws and rules of procedure to the Commission. Examples of items that need to be determined include but are not limited to:
• Speaking time allotment for public comments.
• Setting Agenda posting deadline beyond the 72-hour minimum posting requirements. • Setting time limits on action item discussion.
• Maximum time for Commission meetings.
• Process for disclosing contact outside of Commission meetings. • Rotation schedule of Chair and Vice Chair, if rotation is elected. • Powers and authority to the Chair and Vice Chair.
PAGE 8 Committees
and Consultants
PAGE 9
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Chair and Vice Chair Selection
The assignments of Chair and Vice Chair were determined by a simple survey of all the Commissioners, who expressed their individual interest to assume either or both roles during three-month cycles. The schedule for the rotating Chair and Co-Chair was set in November 2020.
The roles of the Chair and Vice Chair are as follows:
Chair
• Preside at all meetings of the Redistricting Commission, which includes managing and leading discussion.
• The Chair is accountable to the Commission in setting and executing policy and shall also perform such duties as may be assigned by the Commission.
• Finalize the Agenda for Commission meetings with the assistance of city staff and Vice Chairs. • May call special meetings of the Commission.
• Represent the Commission in meetings or communications with local officials and the public.
Vice Chair
• In the absence of Chair, or at the Chairperson’s request, preside at meetings of the Commission, which includes managing and leading discussion.
• Work with the Chair and City staff in finalizing the agenda for Commission meetings. • At the request of the Chair, may represent the Commission in meetings or communications with local officials and the public.
Challenges
Chairperson and Vice-Chair were volunteers and everyone who wanted to chair or vice chair responded to a survey which was used to assign commissioners to each role for a voted-on period of three months. The bylaws and description of the role functions were not always clear. This was evident when a Chair had their own opinions to share while at the same time were supposed to be objectively facilitating the Commission meetings.
The pace of work by the Commission was initially slow. Work increased after the delayed census data was finally released in late summer of 2021, with the most significant output coming with the arrival of the outreach consultant and the start of the mapping process.
This rhythm was noticeable as short, procedural meetings gave way to long meetings that lasted several hours.
These long meetings involved significant public comment and longer agendas. The official role and capacity of the Chair was evidently tested during this evolution of meeting activity, with greater volume of public input and increasingly impactful discussions among the Commissioners.
PAGE 10 Committees
and Consultants
PAGE 10
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Recommendations
Clearly define the expectations and limits for the Chair and Vice Chair roles so that meetings are run without bias. The Chair should set the example for all Commissioners to be objective and fair with respect to following the Bylaws, to ensuring that differences of opinion among Commissioners are explained or acknowledged, and to address legitimate concerns from the public.
Some ways the Chair and Vice Chair can ensure fairness and equity in meetings include:
• what agenda items to include or not
• the order of agenda items
• amount of speaking time
• how decisions are made or not
• acknowledging the need for expert support and consultation, especially as regards charged and thorny issues
Consultant Selection
On October 2, 2020, City staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to identify consultants that can work with the Commission on drawing the district maps. Per the City Charter, the Commission is responsible for approving the consultant and therefore, staff requested Commissioners to assist in the interview and selection process. This resulted in staff and no more than four (4) Commissioners making a recommendation to the full Commission on the consultant that will be hired.
Consultants Selected
Redistricting Partners, Mapping Consultant
Government & School Board
The Government & School Board ad-hoc committee was formed with the purpose to participate in mayoral and city council meetings, school board meetings, and neighborhood meetings. The committee tracked recurring meetings, special meetings, and newsletter publications. The committee invited all Commissioners to schedule their participation at virtual meetings, and do presentations on the behalf of the Commission.
Outreach
The goal of the Outreach Committee is to assist the Commission in reaching as many Oakland residents as possible, educating them on what the redistricting purpose and process is and what it personally means for them as an Oakland resident. We will create transparency through delivering a clear message that promotes understanding of how redistricting works and benefits both residential and business PAGE 10 Committees
and Consultants
PAGE 11
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
owners and renters. We will share what redistricting implications will be for residents over the next ten years and what their thoughts, concerns, and hopes are.
Identify outreach methods which are a combination of phone banking, survey distribution via email, text, and social media. In person outreach will happen on a limited basis and be conducted by Commissioners • Get numbers from census to start analyzing the new population demographics • Create outreach timeline and benchmark activities
• Create final report timeline and benchmark activities • Create census data analysis timeline and benchmark activities • Create outreach survey questions and distribution timeline and benchmark activities • Contact outreach partners to assist in contacting Oakland Residents timeline and benchmark activities • Create outreach partner contact list with Commissioners at next meeting • Decide with commissioners how we want to capture and format data analysis at next meeting Communications
The Communications Ad Hoc Committee was tasked with developing messaging that is widely accessible to the community in a timely and responsive manner. The Committee will work and coordinate with other Committees and Commissioners to help advance the Redistricting Commission’s agenda and Charter requirements. The Communications Ad Hoc Committee will prioritize working with underserved Oaklanders, groups, and organizations in bringing awareness to the redistricting process.
The committee proposed:
• Develop and finalize a communications toolkit (i.e., talking points, flyers, social media posts, etc.) for the Redistricting Commission.
• As materials are created, this Committee will contact organizations of interest and request they share the Commission’s marketing materials with their networks. The Committee will also respond to follow up questions from these organizations, should questions be received. • To coordinate with and support the Community Outreach Ad-Hoc Committee. • To coordinate with city staff in organizing and updating the Commission’s website. • To coordinate with city staff to draft and finalize press releases to summarize meetings and publish announcements
• Develop a contact list of organizations for the Commission and categorize groups by communities of interest.
Faith-Based Organizations
This committee was formed to identify Oakland’s Faith-Based Organizations (FBO),engage them in learning more about the redistricting process, and encouraging them to engage their constituents and networks in the redistricting process. The list of FBO’s is included in the Appendix.
PAGE 10 Committees
and Consultants
PAGE 12
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Community-Based Organizations
This committee was formed to identify Oakland’s Community-Based Organizations (CBO), engage them in learning more about the redistricting process, and encouraging them to engage their constituents and networks in the redistricting process. The list of CBO’s is included in the Appendix.
Challenges
Some commissioners signed up for numerous ad -hoc committees without understanding the scope of work.
Meeting attendance dropped off, especially during the spikes in Covid19, and deliverables were often late or incomplete.
Committees were not allowed to communicate directly with one another and had to rely on Commission meetings to relay information and make requests for additional work. The extremely limited logistics of intra-committee communication resulted in missed opportunities to develop synergy and to achieve common goals.
The commission couldn’t communicate directly with the consultants outside of specific commission meetings and live mapping sessions.
Community Outreach was focused on a few populations in Oakland and did not have broad reach to many underserved and underrepresented neighborhoods.
Recommendations
• Initially set up general ad-hoc committees and have each ad-hoc committee create outline of scope of work and deliverables. Add potential sub committees as needed to support ad-hoc committee deliverables.
• Add a training ad-hoc committee to ensure commission remains aware of Charter expectations and legal compliance.
• Rather than disband after the consultant selection process, the consultant selection ad- hoc committee could be the liaison between the mapping consultant and the Commission to communicate the mapping process and answer questions.
• Community outreach may require more than one consultant or consultants with broader reach to community leaders and to networks of communities.
PAGE 13 Budget and
City Staff
PAGE 13
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Budget and City Staff
Budget
The Commission’s budget is determined by the city and is based on a calculation that references the 2013 redistricting budget. The City Charter states:
“The City Council shall appropriate funds to meet the operational needs of the Commission and any outreach program to solicit broad public participation in the redistricting process of at least the amount spent in 2013 on redistricting adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. The City Council shall allocate the pro rata share of the total estimated cost beginning in year 2015 and each year ending in two (2) thereafter, in anticipation of the redistricting year.” There were a specific number of budget items, with the bulk of the budget allocated to the mapping consultant.
City Staff
• Deputy City Administrator - Richard Luna - April 2020 thru December 2021 • Environmental City Planner- Corey Alvin - December 2020 thru January 2023 • Acting Deputy City Administrator- Felicia Verdin – December 2021 thru January 2023 • City Attorney Office- Mitesh Bhakta - December 2020 thru January 2023 City staff was appointed to provide the necessary resources and assistance that the Commission relied on to do its job. As the commission was grateful for everything the city staff had done, there are challenges that need to be worked on for the next commission. A dedicated city staff is required to perform all of the administrative work that happens before, during and after public meetings. The city staff maintained the Commission’s website and controlled access to its social media accounts. The city staff produced the Commission’s meeting agendas and meeting minutes. The city staff hosted the Zoom meetings and provided technical support. City staff was also responsible for engaging city government authorized vendors for printing and advertising, and for managing contracts with vendors and consultants who performed services for payment. The mapping consultant went through a city government’s request for proposal (RFP) process that began before the Commission was formed, and the outreach consultant was selected because of its existing established relationship with city government. City staff served as a liaison to other departments, agencies and the City Council. This scope of responsibilities makes it clear that the next commission’s city staff be granted more resources to build a bigger team of several city staffers with overlapping areas of expertise, with access to critical city resources such as experts, reports, research and data that support the redistricting process.
PAGE 13 Budget and
City Staff
PAGE 14
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
City Charter Regulations
The City Administrator or his or her designee shall do all the following:
No later than January 1, 2020, and in each year ending in the number zero (0) thereafter, initiate and widely publicize an application process, open to all residents of Oakland who meet the requirements of subdivision (D)(1), in a manner that promotes a qualified Commissioner applicant pool that is large and reflective of the geographic, racial, ethnic, and economic diversity of the City of Oakland. This process shall remain open until April 1, 2020, and in each year ending in the number zero (0) thereafter.
Create a reader-friendly application available electronically and in hard copies for prospective commissioners and seek assistance from a broad range of community-based organizations in its outreach efforts. Applicants shall attest on the application, under penalty of perjury, that the information provided is true.
Ensure that the pool has at least three qualified applicants from each existing City Council district.
Take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure that the pool has the requisite numbers, diversity, and qualifications.
The City of Oakland Administrator shall designate staff to support the Commission. The Commission shall approve consultants as needed following a competitive bidding process. Compensation of such persons shall be limited to the period in which the Commission is active.
The City Attorney and the City Administrator, or his or her designee, shall train the Commissioners prior to beginning their work. The training shall cover the open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act.
Challenges
The original budget was largely allocated to contracting with a mapping consultant. The original budget did not include funds for a community outreach consultant.
It was challenging for the Commission to understand how to request budget information and how much money was allocated and available for the Commission for the redistricting process. There was a lack of transparency, resources and information provided on understanding the budget process. There were obstacles to accessing resources, information and data analyses from other city departments and a lack of transparency with regard to the protocols for accessing these resources. Although city staff suggested the Commission could request information at any time, the Commission’s lack of experience and knowledge made it difficult to know what to ask for. The Commission learned late in its tenure of valuable information that would have been extremely helpful in the redistricting process.
For example, city staff was provided a report early in the redistricting process that was relevant for PAGE 13 Budget and
City Staff
PAGE 15
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
understanding a demographic data analysis of Oakland’s school districts. This data was not provided to the Commission in time for the start of the mapping process.
The Commission deliberated over the course of a few meetings to finally decide to petition City Council for additional funds for community outreach in the Spring of 2021. Additional funds were granted by the City Council after formal written requests by the leadership team were sent to City Council members and their key staff members, followed by verbal requests at virtual City Council budget meetings in May and June 2021.
The new budget funds for the community outreach consultant were managed by city staff and the consultant. The Commission received no additional funds for ad-hoc committee work.
The timing of the availability of funds was out of sync with the Commission’s initial outreach goals and resulted in no tangible outreach in the form of radio ads, billboard ads or video production for the website and social media.
Although a postcard handout was produced, no other printed materials were produced with the Commission’s original budget. The effect of this was not being able to reach out to as many communities as possible, which led to underserved or underrepresented communities not having their voices heard before the draft maps were being drawn. Some commissioners decided to use their own personal money to create printed outreach materials and donated significant time outside of Commission and committee meetings to do community outreach.
There were barriers to directly reaching out to those city departments and agencies that wrote relevant reports based on data analytics and methodologies. Commissioners were not empowered to contact these resources directly, relying on city staff to be the Commission’s liaison. The lack of awareness by the Commission of other city resources, had a direct impact on the mapping process. The Commission relied on city staff to suggest and provide information that would help it lead the redistricting process, such as OUSD demographics, civic engagement data, and equity indicators.
For example, Darlene Flynn, who currently leads Oakland’s Race and Equity Department, provided a presentation with important data concerning equity during the Commission’s training period and much later, after the final draft map was adopted. As recommended elsewhere in this report, invaluable and essential information should be shared with the Commission and the public multiple times during the redistricting process.
As a result of these barriers, city staff had the power to pick and choose which information and resources should be shared with the Commission, making the process of creating a fair and equitable map difficult.
PAGE 13 Budget and
City Staff
PAGE 16
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Recommendations
The Commission’s budget should not be based on the 2013 or 2015 redistricting budget, as stated in the City Charter.
There should be a new calculation for determining the budget, which adjusts for inflation, estimated production costs for printing and media, and industry averages for consultant fees.
The Commission needs to be provided information and a formal mechanism on how to request funds from the city council. The charter rules clearly state that funds should be set aside for the purpose of outreach.
Each ad-hoc committee should be allowed a certain amount of money to be able to use for purposes of outreach, consultants, and other important needs.
City staff should be trained in the proper procedures and priorities based on what is stated in the actual charter.
City staff needs to be more aware of potential city resources and proactive with recommending to the Commission who and what could help the redistricting process.
It goes without saying that if the Commission is relying on City staff for support, then City staff should be able to provide the necessary information on the budget. Funds should be allocated and provided for flyers and other materials prior to the formation of the Commission. If more funds are needed, it should not be the responsibility of the commissioners to have to request but of the City Staff.
It would be good to create a budget subcommittee to allocate and understand where funds should be set aside for when the Commission begins.
Being a commissioner is a volunteer position and the amount of time and effort that it takes to complete the Commission’s work should require a stipend for the commissioners.
Materials needed to create maps, software that works, and outreach should have funds dedicated towards the effort of drawing a fair map.
We hope these recommendations can be implemented in either the City Charter or the next Commission’s Bylaws. These are recommendations that will help the next commission in their efforts.
PAGE 17
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Training
Description Date
Brown Act & Sunshine Ordinance 10/14/20
Measure DD & Section 220 10/14/20
Government Ethics Act 11/12/20
Robert’s Rules of Order 11/12/20
Race & Equity Training 12/9/20
Disclosure Requirements by Commissioners – (Rule 13 Rules of Procedure) 12/9/20 California Common Cause Workshop 2/10/21
Public Ethics Training 3/11/21
Redistricting Law & Criteria 7/28/21
Communities of Interest Strategies 7/28/21
Challenges
Trainings were at the beginning of the Commission’s term and were early in the process. Trainings were limited in substance and did not result in proper application at critical times during the redistricting process. The Commissioners did not have opportunities to practice the skills or apply the knowledge learned from these passive trainings. Commissioners who came from various experiences and/or expertise may not have understood the application of the training.
Recommendations
Trainings should be done in context. Trainings should be scheduled so they are aligned with the redistricting process, when they are relevant to the criteria mandated by the City Charter. Reviewing the Charter requirements should happen multiple times during the redistricting process. At a minimum, the training for reviewing Charter requirements should occur two weeks prior to the receipt of census data. There should be at least one training offered by the OUSD detailing how the district boundaries are related to, and different from, school attendance boundaries. There should be at least one training from the Department of Race & Equity that presents an analysis of the current district map and an equity analysis of the final two draft maps prior to final adoption. Trainings need to be repeated, especially when new Commissioners become members after the initial selection process.
Reminders of the legal and ethical guardrails should be provided, either through additional training sessions or as part of each meeting’s agenda.
PAGE 18
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Meetings
The Commission held regular monthly meetings on the second Wednesday of each month at 5pm, beginning in October 2020. Special meetings were scheduled as needed to accommodate special activities, presentations, workshops and to address additional business. Live mapping was conducted during both general and special meetings. All Commission meetings were publicly held and required a quorum of at least nine Commissioners for the start and duration of the meeting. Meeting agendas included an Open Forum at the top of the meeting and public input was encouraged for each agenda item. City staff posted the meeting agenda and Zoom link to the Commission’s website approximately one week prior to the respective meeting. Meeting links and agendas were emailed to the Commission’s mailing list.
Each meeting was primarily led by the Chair, along with two Vice Chairs. City staff members provided the technical infrastructure, administrative support for producing agendas, distribution of written public comment, and legal counsel. City staff members were available to answer procedural, historical and other types of questions raised by Commissioners and the public. The roles of Chair and Vice Chairs were determined by a simple survey of all the Commissioners, who expressed their individual interest to assume either or both roles during three-month cycles.
The schedule for the rotating Chair and Co-Chair was set in November 2020.
Challenges
The public attendance at the meetings was very low in the first several months of 2020. Public attendance significantly increased as the easing of pandemic restrictions allowed for in-person outreach and the outreach consultant officially began their work. As the redistricting process entered the mapping phase, public comment increasingly pointed to a lack of awareness about the redistricting process – what is it, why does it matter, the deadline to produce a new map, and who was involved.
The meetings were facilitated by the current Chair with guidance from City Staff, including the project manager and the city attorney. This balance offered a fair and transparent facilitation and relieved any one person from leading a meeting. The Commission’s Bylaws & Procedures defined the role of the Chair and the Vice Chairs as responsible for setting meeting agendas and to manage the meetings. The Chair was the representative of the Commission when interacting with city government, city council, civic organizations, and members of the public.
The Bylaws and Procedures followed a template that is used by other city commissions and boards. The template did not specifically provide tools for addressing the issues that eventually arose during the redistricting process. These issues were not limited to: anticipating key topics that would later arise during the mapping phase and proactively planning directed discussions around those key topics; anticipating the need for more live mapping sessions, workshops and training; directing ad-hoc committees to pursue specific activities as a result of discussion and public comment; and, perhaps most
PAGE 19
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
importantly, a mechanism for resolving “worst case scenarios” which occurred when the Commission was divided or deadlocked when trying to reach critical decisions. The Bylaws and Procedures ultimately provided a generic managerial role for the Chair, which allowed for adherence to a strict definition of the role of Chair and Vice Chair by some who served and allowed for a generous interpretation of those roles by others.
Each of the seven districts was represented by at least one Commissioner. There was limited discussion about how that representation should come to bear on the redistricting process. Some Commissioners felt strongly about representing their district and their district’s needs and interests. Other Commissioners felt it was important to balance the needs and interests of communities across districts and across the entire city. This debate continued throughout the process and intensified as draft maps were drawn.
As the charter deadline approached, it became necessary that the Commission conduct more, and more frequent, meetings. This was limited by the schedule imposed for setting and distributing the agenda, which in some cases prevented the Commission from conducting business that was urgent and timely, and also interfered with the mapping consultant’s ability to publish draft maps and the corresponding population analysis in a timely way.
When it became known that a new map would not be adopted by the charter deadline of December 31st, the pressure to come to a majority vote on a new map required the Commission to continue meeting in 2022. The Commission lost a voting member and an alternate Commissioner during this time.
Recommendations
The process to produce meeting agendas and to publish the agendas in a timely way for the public should be addressed. For the meeting agendas the Commission recommends: shifting the influence away from city staff to the Commission for agenda development; increasing opportunity for submitting suggestions for meeting agendas; introduce flexibility in the timeline for producing meeting agendas; mapping outreach goals to the meeting schedule.
The role of the Chair and Vice Chairs should be clearly defined with deliberate consideration for the redistricting process and its unique requirements: for the purpose of maximizing open discussion, venturing into historically contentious and difficult topics, thoughtful decision making, and equal access for all participants to express opinion, comment, and concerns during the meetings. The role of the Commissioner as a representative of their district should be addressed early in the process.
It is critical that the public meetings be conducted objectively, evenly, and fairly, with respect extended to everyone in attendance. The next commission should formally address the importance of objectivity and equity and how the Commission can best achieve it. A definition of objectivity and the minimum criteria to be met for all decisions should be defined in the City Charter and/or the Commission’s Bylaws and Procedures. All decisions, whether brought by a motion or by the Chair or Vice Chair, should be weighed with these considerations in mind.
PAGE 20
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Outreach
Initial Commission Outreach
The initial plan was for the Commission to create sub-committees which would focus on different elements of the outreach strategy. This was before the Commission realized a dedicated community outreach consultant was needed. The Commission’s original budget, as set by the City, did not include funds for an outreach consultant. The expectation by the Commissioners and city staff was that the Commission would develop and execute its own outreach strategy, with some funds available for printing and advertising costs. The Outreach, Communications, and Government committees each developed strategies, while the committees that targeted Faith-Based and Community-Based Organizations were tasked with generating substantial lists of those organizations and contacting as many as possible.
Though most of these organizations had websites, contact forms and email addresses, many had only phone numbers. Due to the pandemic, many organizations did not have regular office hours, or were understaffed, and were hard to contact. Additionally, given the limitations of social distancing and non- gathering ordinances in place at the time outreach was almost exclusively virtual via email, phone and through video conferencing platforms.
At the time, the main purpose of outreach was to inform the public about the redistricting process that had begun and invite residents of Oakland to weigh in on the process. Commissioners actively sought to engage Oaklanders in the redistricting process as much as possible, despite the constraints of the on- going pandemic.
Though initial excitement and enthusiasm for community outreach was present, it soon became clear that regardless of the pandemic restrictions, the task of outreaching to 400,000+ Oakland residents far exceeded the capacity of the 15 Commissioners.
Bringing in Outreach Consultants
The process to find and hire an outreach consultant took much longer than anticipated, which jeopardized the outreach planning leading up to the first mapping sessions. Additional funds were not available for several weeks after the City Council granted the Commission an additional $40,000, which precluded initiating the process to retain the consultant. In addition, the census data had not yet been released with delays caused by the pandemic and the federal administration. These were unplanned events that occurred during a crucial time in the redistricting process.
Throughout this time, the Commissioners continued to outreach via phone and virtually to different organizations and community groups with the hope that they would in turn reach out to their networks to share more information about the on-going redistricting process.
Restrictions for in-person gatherings started to lift in Fall 2021, which offered long awaited opportunitie to do in- person community outreach. Some of these activities included town halls, farmers markets, festivals, and community organization gatherings. Individual commissioners volunteered to do in-person outreach, meeting Oaklanders, promoting the Commission’s work and goals, gathering public comment, answering questions about redistricting, and registering email signups for Commission news and meetings. This was successful, albeit on a small scale. The Commission had produced printed materials for tabling at markets and festivals before the outreach consultant was officially under contract.
Although there was enthusiasm from all Commissioners to participate at in-person outreach events, the pandemic PAGE 21
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
remained a threat, hindering the capacity of the Commission to work to full effect.
The welcome addition of the community outreach consultant offered relief and new challenges for the Commission’s outreach efforts. Although the three committees dedicated to outreach and communications remained active, there was a transfer of duties and expectations to the consultant, reinforced by city staff.
A sense of easing of duties amongst the committees occurred simultaneously with the need to ramp up outreach to “catch up” with the previous slow pace of strategy, implementation and outcomes. The consultant developed an outreach strategy and a methodology for capturing results and outcomes, and they performed needed services, such as networking, scheduling, active engagement, new content development and design. Outreach, under the direction of the consultant (Outreach by Design and Eastside Arts Alliance) continued throughout the redistricting process and contributed to bringing in more varied voices and perspectives into the process. The outreach consultant’s final report is included in the Appendix as a separate document.
Enhanced Outreach
The Commission continued to work towards its outreach goals by contacting and presenting to the public at virtual town hall meetings, which were actively advertised by the outreach consultants. Many stakeholders from across the city hosted and participated in these town halls at various points in time in the process. Those stakeholders included political organizations, civic associations, communities of interest, City Regional Service Centers, Citizens Advisory Boards, and the public. Every member of the Commission participated in virtual townhall meetings and heard from Oaklanders of their needs, wants, and desires for redistricting.
The consultants had posters made in multiple languages as well as a short, animated video, all briefly explaining what redistricting is and how residents could participate in the process. These were shared widely, but mainly through the City of Oakland website and listservs.
Once census data was received and the Commission began iterating on maps and talking about actual lines and boundaries and their historic and future implications, many more Oakland residents and stakeholders began to engage in the process. Throughout the process, the Commission received over 500 individual written comments after maps were presented for consideration as well as numerous verbal comments during the virtual meetings.
PAGE 22
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Dozens of maps were digitally drawn by Oaklanders and were submitted for the Commission’s consideration. The breadth of needs and wants expressed by the public was immense. Commissioners realized that tough choices were necessary for any map that divides the city into seven districts. Over 100 comments were received after a single map was voted upon by the Commission.
Challenges
In the beginning of the process, with census data delayed, outreach was exclusively descriptive and invitational, and therefore not very engaging to the public. There were no maps to critique and no way for the public to provide their own maps, yet.
Once the consultants created informative content to share and were out in the field, there was a sense of disconnection and lack of direction between the outreach consultant and the Outreach and Communications committees, which may have come from the late entry of the consultant into the process and further misunderstandings about roles and responsibilities. Some outreach projects proposed bythe committees and the Commission did not come to fruition, such as billboard and radio advertising, and sending a simple informative mailer about the redistricting process to all Oakland residents. It was not clear if the outreach consultant or the City of Oakland did not support these additional methods of outreach, but nonetheless, they did not occur.
Despite all the work of the outreach consultants, the fact that most meetings and communications were virtual left out tens of thousands of Oakland residents, especially those who are most impacted by poverty and lack of high-quality city services and infrastructure. This was made clear by the lack of diversity in who showed up to Commission meetings and town halls. Only those with consistent internet connections, time, and willingness to sit through hours long Zoom meetings were able to actively participate in the process. Emailed comments, found here on the Commission’s website, were received and read by Commissioners but there was no central organizing of the comments, beyond what individual Commissioners did in their own notes. Online survey responses, also found here on the Commission’s website, were organized by respondent name and voting district, but not by tally or topic.
There was very little attention paid to the impact of the redistricting process on schools, families, and the school district. Throughout the process, residents and Commissioners were not clear on how the district lines related to, intersected with and were unrelated to school attendance boundaries, which are set by the school district. This led to excessive confusion and misinformation for all. It was left up to individual commissioners with personal knowledge about schools and the district to bring that conversation to the table.
The ad-hoc committees eventually stopped meeting regularly, as they had been since they were formed. This cessation occurred not long after the outreach consultant joined the redistricting process. At the same time, with the release of the census data, the Commission shifted its priority to analyzing the census data, proposing new district lines, debating, and discussing their potential implications. This shift in focus further exacerbated the disconnect between the Commission and the outreach consultant. Additionally, the Commission’s project manager and lead city staff member left his office in December of 2021. His departure was unexpected and came at a critical time when public awareness of the redistricting process was rapidly increasing. The Commission was entering the mapping phase, and the charter-specified deadline was fast approaching.
Recommendations
PAGE 23
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
In advance of the formation of a new Commission, city staff should have a marketing plan for engaging Oakland residents in the redistricting process. The plan should include minimum requirements for announcing and promoting the upcoming redistricting process, such as:
• Printed postal mailers that are sent to every address in the city; • Billboard advertisements;
• Radio public service announcements.
The city should plan to mail at least two informational pieces with the important dates and instructions for participating in the redistricting process to every address.
Every Commissioner should have common knowledge of general points of reference of the city’s geography.
Commissioners must survey and gain general knowledge of the districts.
Volunteer commissioners or an ad-hoc committee should go out and survey by observation any material points of contention in the mapping process.
The Commission and the ad-hoc committees should identify numerous opportunities and strategies for improving community outreach and all opportunities and strategies must be pursued.
There should be standardized informational presentations created and used when presenting to all stakeholders , both about the redistricting process as well as the current map options at the time. There must also be a way for Oaklanders to share their feedback and for their feedback to be accurately collected and organized for the Commissioners to review and consider. Comments should be minimally tagged for district, topic, and sender. A system for organizing comments would greatly help the Commission understand where comments come from and which topics are priorities, to name a few data points.
Equal attention must be paid to both the implications of the new district lines on the Oakland School Board elections and on the City Council elections. To this end, representatives from both the City Council and from the Oakland Unified School District must be brought into share about how the district lines impact the work of both entities and thereby impact the lives of all Oaklanders. The differences between the OUSD school attendance boundaries and the district lines are critical to understanding the city’s redistricting process. Again, further education for the commissioners about these lines, and their impact on Oaklanders’ lives must be provided.
PAGE 24
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
An Equity Analysis by the City’s Department of Race & Equity should be presented about the current map, so that the Commission and the public can clearly understand the implications of changing district boundaries as the city’s population changes.
There should be more ways to submit written public comment and not be solely technology-based.
The Commission’s budget should include funds for at least one expert community outreach consultant. The consultant selection process should be started as soon as the Commission is equipped to select the consultant. This would be a priority for the Commission.
PAGE 25
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Mapping
City of Oakland
Final Plan (F5)
PAGE 26
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Introduction
On February 23, 2022, the Redistricting Commission adopted Resolution No 22-004 to adopt Draft Map F5 which describes the new district boundaries for the City Council and the Oakland Unified School Board (OUSD). The final district map was adopted in time for implementation for the Municipal and General elections in November 2022.
The Commission conducted 11 live mapping sessions beginning in November 2021. These sessions occurred during general and special meetings, with guidance by Redistricting Partners, the Commission’s mapping consultant. The Commission considered (19) draft district maps before adopting Draft Map F5. Each of the draft maps and the final district map are available on the Commission’s website for ten years, until the next redistricting in 2031.
Each draft map and the final map are available in an interactive version and accompanied by a printable “atlas” – a demographic analysis of each district by population size , race and voting age populations. Only Asian, Black, Latino and Other populations were considered, with the Other category comprised of residents who self-identified as Other on the census and who represented many races and ethnicities. For Oakland’s redistricting process, the Commission equated the Other category as primarily white residents. Each draft map and the final map are accompanied by a written description of changes in the district boundaries. All analyses and descriptions were prepared by Redistricting Partners.
Justification for the New District Map
The existing boundaries for each of the seven districts (determined in 2013) changed as a result of the 2020-2021 redistricting process. The most significant changes occurred along the boundary of Districts 1 and 4, along the boundary of Districts 4 and 5, and along the boundary of Districts 6 and 7. The Commission strived to balance the legal criteria as mandated by the City Charter and federal and state law, with the complex qualities that make Oakland unique. The Commission initially aimed to balance population size across all districts, with a target of far less than the maximum 10% deviation (difference) in populations allowed by law. Ultimately, the Commission focused on maximizing the Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) for each district based on the 2020 census data and by maximizing the Asian, Black and Latino populations in Districts 2 (Asian), 3 (Black), and 5 (Latino). For District 6 and District 7, the revelation of Oakland’s diversity and complexity is apparent in the relationship of those district’s CVAP to their majority populations by race. Both districts in deep East Oakland have majority Latino populations coexisting with majority Black Citizen Voting Age Populations. The new district boundaries may already be insufficient for maximizing the representation of these populations, as the growth and development of Oakland continues to rapidly change.
The Commission received extensive and early community input from residents in Districts 1, 2 and 4. There was a significant difference in volume of community input from Districts 3, 5, 6 and 7 at the early stages in the mapping phase, with a noticeable increase of community input from residents in Districts 6 PAGE 27
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
and 7 near the end of the redistricting process.
Community input ranged from specific requests for drawing new district lines to suggestions and pleas for prioritizing requests on the basis of cultural, economic and political needs. Examples include the integrity of historic neighborhoods, access to small and large business districts, the location of new housing developments, and the location of regional institutions such as the Oakland Coliseum and the Oakland Zoo.
Each of the seven district maps appear with their respective demographic data: population, CVAP, and majority and minority populations by race. All of this data comes from the 2020 census, including the categories and definitions.
Note that the “Other” category was widely used by residents representing many races and ethnicities, however the majority of people in the “Other” category identified as white. Each map is accompanied with an explanation of the key factors affecting the Commission’s mapping decisions. Some explanations overlap since district boundaries are influenced by each other.
PAGE 28
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
City of Oakland
Final Plan (F5)
DISTRICT 1
District 1
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 62,372 -755 -1.2% 37,532 60.2% 7,315 11.7% 7,067 11.3% 10,458 16.8%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 49,087 30,830 62.8% 4,158 8.5% 5,229 10.7% 8,870 18.1%
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
PAGE 29
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
District 1
Key Considerations
Official and organized business districts featured prominently in public comment. Geography also featured as natural boundaries for neighborhoods and the district as a whole. The southern district line that followed I-580 was considered an historically arbitrary boundary line.
Changes
• The southern border was above I-580 and was moved south to include Mosswood Park (I-580/ MacArthur Blvd was historically a problematic border for the adjacent district boundaries, which was connected to redlining)
• The new map brings Longfellow neighborhood into District 3, an historically Black neighborhood • The border of I-580 is moved to 40th Street
• Part of Adams Pt has been moved to District 3 (this helped balance the population for District 3) • The northern boundary (NE) moved west to HWY 13 / Tunnel Rd and Broadway Terrace • District 4 has the smallest population of all districts; hence it is the largest district geographically (because it has less density)
• Rockridge and Upper Rockridge and cemetery are kept together in the same district, which was supported by strong community input
• The drawing of Districts 1, 3 and 4 were critical to balancing the populations across all districts PAGE 30
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
City of Oakland
Final Plan (F5)
DISTRICT 2
District 2 2020 Census
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 62,534 -593 -0.9% 21,375 34.2% 11,371 18.2% 21,258 34.0% 8,530 13.6%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 41,362 16,192 39.1% 4,587 11.1% 13,926 33.7% 6,657 16.1% Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
PAGE 31
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
District 2
Key Considerations
The largest Asian community resides and works in District 2. The census data, with strong support from communities in Oakland’s Chinatown and San Antonio districts, reinforced the Commission’s effort to maximize the Asian population, especially the Asian Citizen Voting Age Population. Lake Merritt figured prominently in the public comment coming from Oaklanders who live and work along the lakeside.
Changes
• D2 boundaries did not change significantly
• Like the challenges with CVAP and population in Districts 6 and 7, District 2 has the highest CVAP for Oakland’s Asian population, however the general population could tilt to different demographics. The Commission decided to maximize both the Asian CVAP and the Asian population for District 2 • The northern boundary moved to Grand Ave (resulting in neighborhoods formerly in District 2 were moved to District 1)
• District 2 gained a significant part of Jack London Square • The district now includes all of Brooklyn Basin (which was promoted by organized community input) PAGE 32
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
City of Oakland
Final Plan (F5)
DISTRICT 3
District 3
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 64,740 1,613 2.6% 25,305 39.1% 10,995 17.0% 11,161 17.2% 17,279 26.7%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 43,670 18,345 42.0% 5,063 11.6% 6,709 15.4% 13,553 31.0% 2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
PAGE 33
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
District 3
Key Considerations
The Commission sought to maximize both the Black population (although not a majority) and the Black Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP). District 3 is historically an area of majority black neighborhoods and communities and has lost that status due to the largest increase in overall population for the city and the exodus of black communities to East Oakland and outside the city.
Changes
• Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) was maximized for the historically Black population, with focus in West Oakland
• Historically Black neighborhoods were kept intact, with the inclusion of formerly separated Black neighborhoods and cultural zones (for example, the Longfellow neighborhood and Mosswood Park) • Cultural areas were considered and for some this was a hard line • According to 2020 census data, population growth is fastest in District 3 • The new district boundaries resulted in the 2nd largest population deviation • More of Jack London Square was moved to District 2 to balance populations • More waterfront along the Embarcadero was moved to District 2 • Adams Pt is divided between D1 and D3 (with focus on population deviation per the notes for District 1) PAGE 34
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
City of Oakland
Final Plan (F5)
DISTRICT 4
District 4
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 62,647 -480 -0.8% 36,422 58.1% 8,654 13.8% 10,739 17.1% 6,832 10.9%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 45,586 28,586 62.7% 4,077 8.9% 7,582 16.6% 5,341 11.7%
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
PAGE 35
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
District 4
Key Considerations
The district experienced the largest decrease in population across all districts since the 2010 census. The predominantly white district has an overwhelming Other (White) majority population and voting population.
Because it is not densely populated, the district’s lines had to be noticeably adjusted to correct for additional population, per the legal criteria. Changes in the district’s borders did not significantly affect its majority population and CVAP, as other districts would experience.
Changes
• The extension of the northern boundary of D4 required balancing the population overall which resulted in the southern / eastern boundary shifting closer to 580 – which makes the district more geographically contiguous and compact
• The Glenview neighborhood, Laurel and Dimond districts are intact and within the same district. There was strong public comment that supported this
• The new district boundaries no longer reach deep into the flatlands and decreases the number of city council members that represent different segments of the Oakland Hills (see explanation for District 1).
The appearance of a “Hills Only” district was a significant topic for discussion for the public and amongst the Commissioners
• The Allendale and Bartlett neighborhoods have support by their Communities of Interest (COI) to be in either District 4 or 5. Allendale is situated entirely within District 4 • Some historical neighborhoods, especially near Maxwell Park, are included in flatland Districts 5 and 6 PAGE 36
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
City of Oakland
Final Plan (F5)
DISTRICT 5
District 5 2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 61,628 -1,499 -2.4% 10,435 16.9% 30,212 49.0% 11,138 18.1% 9,843 16.0%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 32,937 7,083 21.5% 10,546 32.0% 7,426 22.5% 7,882 23.9% Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
PAGE 37
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
District 5
Key Considerations
District 5 is Oakland’s most diverse district, with all census categories significantly represented. However, it is in District 5 that the Latino community intertwines their cultural, civic and historical identity with the identity of the district. The Commission focused on maximizing the Latino population and voting population, with the hope that the CVAP will increase in time for the next census.
Changes
• The new boundaries for District 5 result in an increase of the Latino CVAP and population from the prior map
• Maintaining the Latino CVAP was a priority
• Moving the Glenview neighborhood into D4 allowed for higher Latino CVAP and addressed community concerns about the continuity of neighborhoods in the same district • Most of the Bartlett neighborhood below 580 between 35th Ave and Fruitvale was reconnected • Schools in the flatlands, especially near High St, 55th St and Maxwell Park were critical places to consider as they bordered previous district boundaries
PAGE 38
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
City of Oakland
Final Plan (F5)
DISTRICT 6
District 6 2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 65,401 2,274 3.6% 13,837 21.2% 24,814 37.9% 5,008 7.7% 21,742 33.2%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 41,180 9,561 23.2% 8,094 19.7% 3,666 8.9% 19,859 48.2%
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
PAGE 39
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
District 6
Key Considerations
The district has a uniquely Oakland character of having a majority (Latino) population that is not represented in its majority (Black) CVAP. There was written and vocal concern from the public and commissioners that the district lacked a number of easily identifiable Communities of Interest (COI). Public discussion often focused on the concept of economic engines to justify new boundary lines for the district.
Changes
• The goal was to balance the population and maximize CVAP for the black population in District 6. • Discussions of “economic engines” dominated decision making for redrawing the district boundaries even after the legal criteria were met (for example: the Coliseum, Oak Knoll, and Waterfront were consistent examples of economic engines.)
• There was numerous and strong community input from D6 in favor of considering economic engines (or the lack thereof) for drawing new district boundaries. • Toler Heights and much of the Castlemont neighborhood were moved from District 7 to District 6 • The Coliseum Complex was moved to District 6, for consideration of neighborhoods adjacent to the Coliseum which had been separated by district boundaries and for consideration of the lack of economic engines in District 6
• There is the challenge of correlation between the district’s population by demographic (Latino) which does not match the CVAP population (Black)
PAGE 40
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
City of Oakland
Final Plan (F5)
DISTRICT 7
District 7
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 62,569 -558 -0.9% 7,523 12.0% 33,662 53.8% 3,549 5.7% 17,835 28.5%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 32,124 5,010 15.6% 9,399 29.3% 1,833 5.7% 15,882 49.4%
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
PAGE 41
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
District 7
Key Considerations
Like District 6, District 7 has the uniquely Oakland characteristic of having a majority (Latino) population that is not represented in its majority (Black) CVAP. Although there are more easily identifiable COI, such as the Oakland Airport and Oakland Zoo, housing developments, and geographic features that suggest district boundary lines, there was passionate debate on all of these considerations. The district also experienced a significant increase in population since the last census.
Changes
• Challenges described for District 6 also apply for District 7. In addition, District 7 has large economic engines, such as the Oakland International Airport and the Oakland Zoo, that confusingly suggest there are large economic inputs and outputs that do not directly benefit their host district. • By the numbers, populations by demographic (Latino) does not match CVAP population (Black), which is a unique and interesting challenge that Oakland offers to the redistricting process • The Coliseum Complex was moved from District 7 to District 6 • The previous district boundaries near Castlemont, adjacent to 580 and the Oakland Zoo were changed that affected both District 6 and 7
PAGE 42
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Mapping in the context of the Legal Framework
The mapping process is guided by federal, state and city laws that require certain criteria be met and prioritized.
The City Charter dictates what the criteria are and references the federal and state laws. This legal framework applies whether redistricting is done by an independent commission or by elected officials. Oakland’s current district map meets each of these legal criteria.
For each mandated criteria, the Commission addresses how it applied and fulfilled each of them in the Methodology section. For each criteria, the Commission now understands there was a lot more to learn and to discuss before the mapping phase began.
The official descriptions of the legal criteria are stated in the Oakland City Charter; ARTICLE II - THE COUNCIL; Section 220. Redistricting of City Council and School Board Districts. The original text appears below. The application of each legal criteria is explained after the original charter language.
1. Population
Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution. Each council and school district shall have reasonably equal population with other districts, except where deviation is required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act or permitted by law.
2. Representation
Districts shall comply with the federal Voting Rights Act, commencing at 42 U.S.C. Section 1971,
the California Voting Rights Act, commencing at Section 14025 of the Elections Code, and any other requirement of federal or state law.
3. Geographically contiguous
Districts shall be geographically contiguous.
4. Communities of Interest
The geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes their division to the extent possible without violating the requirements of any of the preceding subsections. A community of interest is a contiguous population that shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair
representation. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.
5. Geographically
Geographically compact to the extent practicable, district boundaries shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant populations.
PAGE 43
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
6. Political incumbents
Districts may not be drawn for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent or political candidate.
7. Additional criteria
The Commission may establish and consider additional criteria that comply with the above listed criteria and the requirements of federal and state law.
Methodology
The redistricting process is a complex process of mapping quantitative data (i.e., census data) with qualitative data (i.e the experiences of individuals and communities as shared through personal and institutional histories). The census data provides the quantitative data for each district, which includes population size and Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) for four demographic groups: Asian, Black, Latino and Other. The mapping consultant prepared a comparison of 2020 census data with 2010 census data, which illustrated the demographic changes that occurred in the past ten years in Oakland. We (the Commission and the public) learned that Oakland grew in some districts, decreased in other districts, and that populations by race and CVAP changed as a result of Oaklanders moving from the North and West to East and Deep East. Understanding statistical data is a crucial part of understanding the stories of why populations change in our districts. The Commission needed community input to make that understanding.
The Commission’s vote to adopt the final district map was a result of reviewing, discussing, and debating the qualities of each draft map in the context of the legal framework. The Commission applied all the criteria to each draft map and its corresponding demographic analysis, all while acknowledging the priority of the criteria. The context of an independent redistricting process informed the Commission’s goals to leverage census data and conduct an open forum for all Oaklanders to participate. Preceding those goals is the legal framework within which the redistricting process must proceed.
Population Size
Focus was placed on population size in each district and the overall population deviation (the average difference in population size across all seven districts). The Commission strived to minimize the overall population deviation, which must be less than 10 percent. Based on the 2020 Census Data, the target population for each of the seven districts was 62,000.
Representation
The Commission consistently evaluated the diversity of each redrawn district, based on the census data, PAGE 44
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
which relied on how individuals self-identified using racial/ethnic categories provided by the census questionnaire.
The Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) data, also determined by the census data, was always heavily considered.
The Commission was insistent on preserving and maximizing Asian, Black, and Latino populations and CVAP in Districts 2, 3, and 5, 6 and 7. The Commission also heavily relied on the input from residents in each district, who offered their stories and experiences living, working, and going to school in their district. Each Commissioner offered stories of their experience living in their respective district. All this data and public input offered a unique, qualitative understanding of the impacts of district boundary lines on populations and communities who are historically, racially, and culturally cohesive.
Geographically Contiguous
The boundaries for each district should visually reflect the integrity of communities, which should include, but not be limited to, physical characteristics such as: neighborhoods, Lake Merritt, parks, school campuses, business, and commercial districts. District boundaries should try not to divide or separate cohesive neighborhoods and communities, nor should boundaries be drawn to bypass an adjacent geographic area for one further away. The shape of a district must reflect boundaries that include whole communities, without arbitrary separation or division of these physical and community characteristics.
The Commission acknowledged that some historical district boundaries, such as Highway 580, have contributed to arbitrary divisions of neighborhoods and communities.
Communities of Interest (COI)
The Commission concluded that Communities of Interest (COI) encompassed more than common social and economic interests, and could not necessarily be bound by geographic contiguity, compactness, or proximity. Some COI were clearly identifiable and geographically based, such as business districts, neighborhood organizations, and arts districts. Other COI represented a geographic diversity with community members living all over the city, such as faith-based organizations, cultural organizations, and community activists. The Commission discussed the importance of COI in the prioritization of criteria in the redistricting process and continued to debate the concept throughout the entire process. Ultimately, a final definition was not agreed upon.
Geographically Compact
The physical size of a district is directly related to its density. Therefore District 2 and District 5 are geographically smaller than Districts 4 and 7, which have fewer residents per square area. The Commission’s focus on preserving COI within district boundaries resulted in some neighborhoods and business districts being reunited and drawn into the same district (for example, the 23rd Avenue cultural and business district was moved to District 2 from District 5) and resulted in moving well known landmarks from one district to another, such as the new border between District 6 and District 7 which places the Coliseum Complex in District 6.
PAGE 45
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Political Incumbents
The Commission was not to consider the impact of district boundaries on the incumbency of a city council member or school board director. Individual commissioners were to remain apolitical and independent from any elected official’s influence or pressure. Commissioners were required to disclose any contact with elected officials, lobbyists or any organization that had business with the city council or school board. The Brown Act mandated that Commissioners make any disclosures at the start of every public meeting.
Additional Criteria
The Commissioners were trained in their early meetings to understand the laws that make up the legal framework and were introduced to concepts rooted in electoral and social justice. These concepts are critical to understanding public input and how it could be meaningfully applied in the mapping process.
The Commission considered these additional criteria during the mapping process:
• Economic engines
• Parks
• Schools
• Business districts
• Cultural districts
Public Participation
Public comment during meetings and via written comment was strongly encouraged and dramatically increased in representation and volume as the mapping process evolved. The Commission received over 1,100 written comments (submitted by individuals, groups, and organizations). The public was also invited to submit digitally drawn maps via the web-based District R mapping tool. One hundred twelve (112) District R maps were submitted to the Commission. District R became an essential tool for understanding the impact of drawing district lines because it dynamically adjusted populations for each district (size, race, voting age). Since the tool was web-based, anyone could use it on their own time to prepare for live mapping sessions. The main flaw of the tool was the inaccuracy of the formula which calculated the overall population deviation, which had to be less than 10%. A simple tool for drawing maps by hand was introduced at the in-person outreach events. These were 11” x 17” color maps of Oakland which showed major roads, streets, and schools. The “placemat” was popular at the in-person events but was not available on the Commission’s website.
Challenges
There was heightened anticipation of the 2020 census data. The delay of the census data should have been an opportunity for the Commission to focus more intensely on community outreach, however limited it still was because of COVID. The several weeks the Commission “waited” for the census data PAGE 46
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
was an opportunity to do more research and training for understanding how to map quantitative and qualitative data.
The delay may have proved more of a distraction, resulting in lost opportunities.
Although the Commission applied its methodology and incorporated public input throughout the evolution of the final district map, there continued to be key aspects of the mapping process that were either not addressed soon enough or not resolved. The Commission identified goals early on that were intended to shape the process, with focus on equity and fairness. However, the mechanics of live mapping, understanding dynamic demographic data, and making decisions to draw, promote or remove a draft map from consideration were insufficiently addressed before these challenges surfaced. Oakland’s incredibly diverse districts posed interesting challenges that could not be solved by applying the legal criteria in a one-size-fits-all way. For example, some districts with significant Latino voting age populations had larger Black populations (D6 and D7). Oakland’s historically Asian District 2, has both a large Asian CVAP and population by size, but neither were above 40%. The Commission had to balance populations by size with CVAP and COI for most of the seven districts, especially those in the flatlands.
The Commission strongly supports tracking and measuring the public comment it received and the effect public participation by COI, group and individual had on the redistricting process. For example, the Commission did not have a methodology for weighing written comments submitted by an individual in comparison to written comments submitted in the form of a letter signed by dozens of individuals.
The mapping consultant was a team of highly professional people, who were clearly experts in the complexities of redistricting. The mapping consultant who led the virtual mapping session for each meeting answered all questions, explained key redistricting concepts, and addressed mapping outcomes that occurred with each change of a district boundary line. The meetings that included mapping sessions were long, often lasting several hours as the deadline approached. This was partly due to the original meeting schedule, which had to be extended with the addition of several special meetings to accommodate live mapping, and partly due to the Commission’s learning curve about setting its meeting agenda. The production of several iterations of maps introduced legal (regarding specificity and transparency) and logistical challenges (the mapping consultant needed a certain amount of time to prepare each map atlas for the next meeting). There was a several week gap early in the mapping phase when the Commission could not discuss previously drawn maps. The delay affected the meeting schedule for the remainder of the redistricting process.
District R, the online platform the public and the commissioners used to create maps for public consideration, used different data and equations from what the actual mapping consultants used, which made it hard to compare the public maps with the consultant maps. The late introduction of District R to the live mapping sessions introduced an unforeseen dilemma for understanding the value of these public maps and how to apply valuable suggestions to the draft maps drawn in the consultant’s software. The discrepancies between the District R online tool and the consultant’s software led to confusion and frustration for the commission and the public, almost defeating the purpose of District R.
PAGE 47
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
The Commission spent a lot of time early in the process discussing its goals to redraw the districts with focus on equity and fairness. The Commission had discussions about methodology during its early meetings when there was not much public participation. These discussions proceeded after trainings were complete and without the continued aid of guest speakers and experts who could facilitate such discussions. This may have been counterproductive. The Commission acknowledges it did not achieve a clear understanding and agreement on key redistricting concepts and definitions, such as COI.
The debate over a Commissioner’s role as representative of their district, as described in the Meetings section of this report, and the debate between quantity and content of public comment played significantly in the decision making during the mapping process. The Commission was faced with weighing a large number of similar comments coming from a small percentage of Oakland’s population in comparison with a much smaller number of comments that voiced a larger range of interests and concerns. This dynamic is directly related to equity and fairness, which was a true test of the Commission’s understanding of these key concepts and how best to apply that understanding.
The Commission believes the redistricting process and the people of Oakland would have been better served with more guest speakers, more workshops, more live mapping sessions, and more time spent on training and learning about redistricting before the mapping phase began.
The Commission was unable to adopt a final map by the deadline of December 31, 2021. The Commission was still discussing, and debating, the merits and problems with multiple maps in the last few weeks of December.
This delay was causing frustration amongst Commissioners and for the public. The Commission faced increasing pressure from the public to quickly reduce the number of maps under consideration and to come to a consensus on one map. The final map had to be approved by a nine majority of the Commissioners and it was clear the Commission was divided over two different approaches to the maps under consideration. Misunderstandings, disagreements, and conflict could have been mostly avoided if the Commission had developed an emergency plan for advancing the mapping process to a maximally desirable outcome.
The evolution of the final map also exposed divisions in the public comment, which rapidly increased as draft maps were published to the Commission’s website.
The confluence of being unable to come to a consensus on one map with the increasing volume of public discontent with the redistricting process was very challenging for the Commission. One Commissioner with voting privileges resigned during this time, requiring an election to promote one of the alternate Commissioners to take her place.
The pace and decibel of the discussions during the meetings, including public comment, revealed fault lines in the civic discourse. Commissioners felt discouraged while nearing the end of the yearlong redistricting process, with a new map yet to be adopted and the prospect of having a Superior Court County judge decide which map to temporarily adopt while the Commission completed its work.
The unexpected and undesirable prolonging of the Commission’s term brought continued challenges, including additional resignations by voting and alternate Commissioners, failure to hold quorum during meetings and failure to schedule new special meetings for the purposes of adopting a final district map. Attempts to meet specifically to discuss the Charter Report were also blocked due to lack of quorum. The Commission succeeded in adopting a new map (F5) for Oakland’s seven districts in February 2022 and held one more meeting in April 2022.
Recommendations
PAGE 48
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
• Expert consultants, paid and volunteer, who offer various skills and technologies, and come from fields of scholarship and interests related to redistricting, are needed in the redistricting process. They would offer guidance, perspectives, experience, and support to the commissioners. The commission would collaborate with contracted consultants frequently. Learning and applying new knowledge should be an ongoing activity for the next commission.
• The mapping consultant should offer multiple training sessions, including demonstrations, that explain and illustrate the relationship between overall population, voting age population, and population by race/ethnicity.
• Every Commissioner should have common knowledge of general points of reference of the city’s geography. Commissioners must survey and gain general knowledge of the districts. • Volunteer commissioners or an ad-hoc committee should go out and survey by observation any material points of contention in the mapping process.
• The commission should schedule more live mapping sessions and allot enough time in each session to allow for live analysis.
• If the online mapping tool, District R, or another similar online mapping tool is used, there should be at least one in-depth training and demonstration session. The public should be allowed to ask questions of the consultant during the demonstration. Data used should be the same and if not, it should be made clear why data being used differs and how to account for that while creating draft maps. • The online mapping tool should be promoted to the public as soon as the census data is available.
It could be promoted to teachers and students to understand redistricting. • Leverage appropriate technology for live mapping, to allow for large screen viewing which could help with seeing map changes at the street level and seeing the demographic data analysis - Public comment should be tracked and compiled to give the Commissioners an accurate count, prevalent topics, and COI, indexed for easy access.
• Virtual meeting technology should be thoroughly tested and rolled out with strong city staff support for handling technical glitches. Other technology should be explored to improve the participatory process.
• Public comment should be tracked and compiled to give the Commissioners an accurate count of public comments, representation for each district, popular topics, and COI input. Public comment should be indexed for easy access.
• An accompanying timeline should track by date: release and overall number of public comments, meeting dates, workshops, and the release of draft maps. This timeline would pair with the tracking of public comment and be published to the website.
• The Commission should determine how to weigh different forms of public comment, to avoid inconsistent treatment of public comment, especially when a highly organized group is better equipped to participate in the redistricting process; historically silent or muted communities and groups must have equal voice. • Any draft map should be analyzed for equity concerns, including evidence of an imbalance of weighing quantity and content of public comment.
• The role of the Chair and Vice Chair should be defined in the Bylaws to account for the unique responsibility of managing live mapping sessions, which includes decision making with potentially significant results.
• To address the issue of objectivity and the public perception that the Commission suffered from a lack of complete objectivity, a definition for Objectivity could be formalized in the City Charter.
PAGE 49
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Summary of Recommendations
All of the Commission’s recommendations are summarized and outlined here.
Committees and Consultants
• Initially set up general Ad-Hoc committees and have each ad-hoc committee create outline of scope and deliverables. Add potential sub committees as needed to support ad-hoc committee deliverables. Add a training ad-hoc committee to ensure commission remains aware of Charter expectations and compliance. • The consultant selection ad-hoc committee could be liaison between the mapping consultant and commission to communicate the mapping process and answer questions. • Community outreach may require more than one consultant or consultants with broader reach.
Chair and Vice Chair
• Clearly define the expectations for the Chair and Vice Chair roles so that meetings are run without bias for I.e., what agenda items to include or not, the order of agenda items, amount of speaking time, how decisions are made or not, etc.
Budget and City Staff
• Each subcommittee should be allowed a certain amount of money to be able to use for purposes of outreach, consultants, and other important needs.
• The commission needs to be provided information on how to request funds from city council. • City staff should be trained on the proper procedure determining the initial budget. • City staff should be able to provide the necessary information on the budget to the Commission in a timely manner. Funds should be allocated and provided for flyers and other materials prior to the beginning of the commission.
• City Staff should be equipped to request additional funds from City Council. • Create a budget subcommittee to manage the budget, including the allocation of funds. • Commissioner should receive a stipend to account for the unanticipated amount of time needed to do the work. Materials needed to create maps, software that works, and outreach should have funds dedicated towards the effort of drawing a fair map.
Training
• Trainings should be scheduled so they are aligned with the redistricting process, when they are relevant to the criteria mandated by the City Charter.
• Reviewing the Charter requirements should happen multiple times during the redistricting process. • There should be at least one training offered by the OUSD detailing how the district boundaries are related to, and different from, school attendance boundaries. • There should be at least one training from the Department of Race & Equity that presents an analysis of the current district map and an equity analysis of the final two draft maps prior to final adoption. • Trainings need to be repeated, especially when new Commissioners become members after the initial selection process. Reminders of the legal and ethical guardrails should be provided, either through additional training sessions or as part of each meeting’s agenda.
PAGE 50
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Meetings
• Produce meeting agendas and to publish the agendas in a timely way. • Shift the influence away from city staff to the Commission for agenda development. • Increase opportunities for submitting suggestions for meeting agendas. • Introduce flexibility in the timeline for producing meeting agendas. • Map outreach goals to the meeting schedule.
• The role of the Chair and Vice Chairs should be clearly defined the Bylaws & Procedures. • The next commission should formally address the importance of objectivity and how the Commission can best achieve it. A definition of objectivity and the minimum criteria to be met for all decisions should be defined in the City Charter and/or the Commission’s Bylaws and Procedures.
Outreach
• Identify numerous opportunities and strategies for improving community outreach. • Pursue all opportunities and strategies.
• In advance of the formation of a new Commission, city staff should have a marketing plan for engaging Oakland residents in the redistricting process.
• The city should plan to mail at least two informational pieces with the important dates and instructions for participating in the redistricting process to every address. • There should be standardized informational presentations created and used when presenting to all stakeholders both about the redistricting process as well as the current map options at the time. • There must be a way for residents to share their feedback and for it to be accurately collected and organized for the Commissioners to review and consider. • Equal attention must be paid to both the implications of the new district lines on the Oakland School Board and on the City Council. Further education for the commissioners about these lines and their impact on Oaklanders’ lives must be provided.
• An Equity Analysis by the City’s Office of Equity should be presented about the current district map. • Ways to submit officially received public comment should offer more options and not be solely technology-based.
PAGE 51
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
• The commission’s budget should include funds for an expert community outreach consultant and the consultant selection process should be started as soon as the Commission is equipped to select the consultant. This would be a priority for the Commission.
Mapping
• A variety of expert consultants should be invited to participate in the mapping process. These consultants could be paid or volunteer, and would offer a range of skills, knowledge, and interests related to redistricting.
• The commission would collaborate with contracted consultants frequently throughout the entire process.
Learning and applying new knowledge should be an ongoing activity for the next commission. • The mapping consultant should offer multiple training sessions, including demonstrations, that explain and illustrate the relationship between overall population, voting age population, and population by race/ethnicity.
• The commission should schedule more live mapping sessions and allot enough time in each session to allow for live analysis.
• Live mapping should start as soon as possible, in order to practice and to learn about the impacts of redrawing district boundaries.
• If the online mapping tool, District R, or another similar online mapping tool is used, there should be at least one in-depth training and demonstration session. The public should be allowed to ask questions of the consultant during the demonstration.
• Publicly available mapping tools, such as DistrictR - used in this redistricting process – should offer the same quantitative data analysis as the mapping consultant’s tools. If the public mapping tool provides different results, it should be made clear by the consultant why the data differs and the consultant should provide a workaround for creating draft maps.
• The online mapping tool should be promoted to the public as soon as the census data is available.
It could be promoted to teachers and students to understand redistricting. • The Commission should determine how to collaborate on drawing maps in groups using the different ways to draw a map. Drawing maps outside the commission’s meetings should be encouraged. The mapping tools should be an educational and fun way to understand the impacts of drawing district lines. • The consultant and city staff should leverage appropriate technology for live mapping, to ensure all participants are able to see the screen(s) on which the mapping occurs. This could help with seeing map changes at the street level and seeing the demographic data analysis. • Virtual meeting technology should be thoroughly tested and rolled out with strong city staff support for handling technical glitches. Other technology should be explored to improve the participatory process.
• Public comment should be tracked and compiled to give the Commissioners an accurate count of comments, representation for each district, prevalent topics, and COI input. Public comment should be indexed for easy access.
PAGE 52
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
• An accompanying timeline should track by date: public comments, meeting dates, workshops, and the release of draft maps. This timeline would pair with the tracking of public comment and be published to the website.
• The Commission should determine how to weigh different forms of public comment, to avoid inconsistent treatment of public comment, especially when a highly organized group is better equipped to participate in the redistricting process; historically silent or muted communities and groups must have equal voice. • The role of the Chair and Vice Chairs should be clearly defined in the Bylaws to account for the unique responsibility of managing live mapping sessions, which includes decision making with potentially significant results.
• To address the issue of objectivity and the public perception that the Commission suffered from a lack of complete objectivity, a definition for Objectivity could be formalized in the City Charter. The Commission should develop criteria for making decisions, especially critical ones that have a big impact.
PAGE 53
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
A Proposal for Future Commissions
An independent redistricting commission is still a good idea. For this inaugural independent Commission, there were high expectations, hopes and yearnings for a new and different kind of redistricting process – an all-inclusive community-led effort to effect change in our access to political power and traditional, political representation, which could have a positive, long-lasting effect for future generations. We’d also like to acknowledge that despite the goal of being an apolitical and solely data-driven process, redistricting is inherently political. Everyone is impacted by redistricting and so obviously many residents will have strong opinions about it. The ultimate goal of the Oakland Redistricting Commission is to enfranchise the residents of Oakland. To this end, given the history of disenfranchisement, redlining, racism and voter suppression in Oakland, it is imperative that Oakland’s next Redistricting Commission take an equity stance when analyzing the census data and potential maps. This means utilizing the City of Oakland’s Department of Race and Equity’s analysis of the current map (approved in 2022) and any potentially new maps being considered during the redistricting process. It is critical to consider the impacts on equity that any new map will have. Every Oaklander should have an equal opportunity to have their voice heard and, if eligible, have their vote counted in City Council and School Board elections. It is the hope of this Commission that the experience, observations, challenges, and recommendations shared in this report contribute to the next, new, and different kind of redistricting process, and advances the ultimate goal of enfranchising ALL eligible voters in the City of Oakland.
PAGE 54
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Reference Links
Final Oakland District Map (Print and Interactive)
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/final-district-map
The history of the draft maps can be found on the Commission’s website:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/district-map-proposals
Oakland City Charter 2020
Census Data
Original Budget (2020)
Modified Budget (2020-2021) Redistricting
Timeline
Government and School Board Schedule
Faith-Based Organizations
Community-Based Organizations
Outreach consultant final report Mapping
consultant final report (?) City staff final
report (?)
City of Oakland Departments
Oakland Equity Map Oakland
Equity Toolbox
Glossary
Census – A usually complete count of population containing social and economic information.
Citizen Voting Age Population – The total population age 18 and over and a US citizen.
City Charter -- The legal document establishing Oakland as a municipality.
City Council – Consists of eight members elected directly by the people of Oakland. The Council is made up of one member from each of seven districts and one at-large representative. The Council sets goals and priorities for the City and approves the City budget, adopts ordinances to help serve its community members and appoints boards and commissions.
District R – Free browser-based tool for drawing districts and mapping communities
Mapping – Symbolic depiction emphasizing relationships between elements of certain regions.
Redistricting – The process of drawing electoral district boundaries following the completion of each decennial census to account for population change.
PAGE 55
Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report 2021-2023
Sunshine Ordinance – Promotes access to government documents and timely notice of public meetings.
Voting Rights Act – Outlaws discriminating practices adopted in many southern states after the Civil War including literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting.
March 7, 2022
Public
Outreach
Report
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 1
Introduction
The purpose of this public outreach report is to document the roles, responsibilities, tools, and timeline for public outreach and community engagement activities that informed the City of Oakland’s independent Redistricting Commission. The goal of the outreach plan was to urge and promote the participation of all Oakland residents in the process of drawing new boundaries for congressional, state, and local districts in 2022.
In September 2021, the Independent Redistricting Commission authorized the City to enter into an agreement with a consultant team led by EastSide Arts Alliance, teaching with Outreach by Design LLC as subcontractor, to prepare an outreach plan and manage a coordinated outreach effort for the City’s redistricting process, broken down into three primary tasks:
● Develop an Outreach Strategy
● Secure Nonprofit and CBO Partnerships
● Support a Multimedia Advertising/Marketing campaign
This outreach recaps the key activities and milestones in the City of Oakland Redistricting Commission’s community engagement objectives and efforts from September to February 2022.
Section 1: Outreach and Engagement Approach
The outreach strategy used an approach to community outreach that centers community and cultural arts, and is defined by core elements that encourage fostering a diversity of perspectives, true partnership vs. token engagement, deep listening, and actionable change.
Three Core Principles guide this outreach strategy: racial equity, cultural humility, and human dignity and respect.
The Project Team – consisting of Redistricting Commissioners, City staff, Volunteers, and the Consultant Team – sought to reach out and engage a full range of communities and stakeholders across Oakland. The public outreach process accommodated engagement in a variety of settings, both online and in-person, for both individuals and different size groups. For example, the outreach included workshops targeted to reach specific groups, pop ups, and an enhanced public engagement toolkit that allows Commissioners, staff, and volunteers to attend community meetings and events that engage groups that have been historically marginalized and underserved.
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 2 The outreach plan sought to identify and engage with diverse communities in Oakland by engaging with a network of nonprofits and CBOs to gain a representative understanding of the different views held across multiple Communities of Interest. This includes Asian American residents; Latinx residents; African American residents; LGBTQ+ residents; Native American and Indigenous residents; undocumented residents; unhoused residents, including people with mental health and substance abuse challenges; formerly incarcerated residents; older adults; youth; college/university students; and other communities, prioritizing historically marginalized and underserved people.
It must be recognized and celebrated that many community organizations, such as Oakland Rising, the Unity Council, Vietnamese American Community Center, West Oakland Cultural Action Network, numerous neighborhood associations, other groups and individuals representing hundreds of thousands of Oaklanders spent countless hours undertaking their own efforts to spread awareness and encourage community input into the work of the Redistricting Commission. While this report documents the direct outreach efforts of the Commission and its outreach consultant team, the diligent efforts of numerous Oakland-based organizations and individuals to raise awareness and encourage the public to participate are central to the amount of interest and input from the community that the Commission received.
Oakland residents had multiple ways to participate in the City’s redistricting process.
Formal public comments were received through:
● Survey, accessible through the Redistricting Commission website or physically during in- person engagement opportunities
● Interactive map, using the online DistrictR mapping tool accessible through the Redistricting Commission website in October 2021
● Redistricting Commission Public Hearing Meetings, accessible via Zoom or phone ● Written comments submitted to the Redistricting Commission via email at [email protected] and [email protected]
Informal public engagement was received at additional activities that included a subset of Commissioners and members of the outreach consulting team:
● In-person popup events
● Virtual workshop events
● Redistricting Commission workshops on using DistrictR
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 3
Figure 1. Commissioner with Oakland Resident at Grand Lake Farmers Market
Section 2: Activities and Outcomes
The outreach approach reflected the overall goal of reaching at least 20% of Oaklanders overall and in each of the seven districts through the following objectives:
1. Build Relationships with Nonprofits and CBOs. Create opportunities for Oakland residents to meet and engage with District Commissioners and others interested in equitable representation.
2. Create Opportunities for Equitable, Inclusive & Accessible Participation. Generate broad awareness of the redistricting process through broad and targeted multimedia advertising and marketing and provide multiple and varied opportunities for a wide range of diverse community members to provide meaningful input on district boundaries and their Communities of Interest.
3. Collaborate, Consult and Inform the Redistricting Process. Collect direct public input that reflects the full geography and diversity of identities, neighborhoods, and lived experience across Oakland’s Communities of Interest that informs the work of the Independent Redistricting Commission.
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 4
Figure 2. Examples of DistrictR maps submitted by the public
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 5
Measures of Success
Objective 1. Build Relationships with Nonprofits and CBOs.
Outcomes:
● The Consultant team connected the Commission and its work with multiple community groups and community leaders through online and in person meetings (detailed below), including a variety of multicultural community-based service organizations, faith-based, and environmental, including: Just Cities Institute, Black Cultural Zone, Oakland Rising, CuryJ, The Unity Council, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and SPUR Oakland.
● Through the Eastside Arts Alliance, the Commission’s work was share with The Deeply Rooted in Oakland Partnership (Deeply Rooted), a unique and innovative collaborative of community-based organizations (CBOs) committed to creating an equitable, sustainable, and culturally thriving Oakland and supporting community outreach for Oakland’s General Plan update.
Objective 2. Create Opportunities for Equitable, Inclusive & Accessible Participation.
Initially, based on the RFP for Redistricting Community Outreach, the following events were planned:
● At least 2 in-person community engagement events, both pre-organized and pop- up/intercept events.
● At least 2 virtual events with partner organizations.
Goals were to maintain a consistent level of participation throughout the process, receive a significant percentage of responses from demographically diverse residents, youth, and seniors, and receive data from a range of different demographics and Communities of Interest at outreach activities.
However, after hosting two in person events, the team realized that more direct engagement was vital to have opportunities for the public to engage, ask questions, and learn more about redistricting before people felt they could effectively provide public input, especially members of the public who are not part of organized associations or accustomed to participating in public decision-making.
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 6
Figure 3. Communities of Interest Survey
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 7 Accordingly, the outreach consultant team began to find opportunities for direct engagement through community partners. We initially identified two opportunities to host targeted in-person engagement with Redistricting Commissioners at the AKOMA Market in October and November at the AKOMA Market, and Lincoln Summer Nights in Lincoln Park through October 21 in Oakland’s Chinatown District.
Each in-person engagement offered opportunities to discuss why getting involved in Redistricting is important, learn about new Communities of Interest, and demonstrate the four ways that Oakland residents can provide input to the Commission. In addition to hosting a table with posters, flyers, and sign-up information, we offered demonstrations of the Redistricting Commission online mapping tool, and to hand out flyers and postcards to engage with residents. Although we sought to provide opportunities for residents to submit maps at the events using digital tablets, people needed more time to engage about the process and reflect on maps than the time afforded at popup outreach events. We did hold two online events with Allen Temple reviewing the DistrictR mapping tool and participated in DistrictR workshops with Oakland Rising. The team encouraged people to attend the Commission's DistrictR workshops, which provided more in depth opportunities for members of the public to learn about the tool and practice making maps.
We developed a list of additional potential nonprofit and CBO partners, faith organizations, city council staff and local and ethnic media, starting from the Commission’s existing list of CBOs, and created a master list of events that could serve as engagement opportunities, building on the Commission’s previous outreach and planned presentation schedule. Our goal in identifying events was to expand reach to include additional opportunities for Commissioners to engage with diverse communities at scheduled events, including: East Oakland Collective Resource Fair and General Body Meetings, AKOMA Market, First Fridays, Rockridge Rock N Stroll, Unity Council Día de Los Muertos, Grand Lake Farmers Market, Asian Health Services COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Event, Grand Lake Farmers Market, Temescal Freedom Farmer's Market, Hoover Foster Resident Action Council Meeting, and other upcoming events as they were added to the calendar.
While the overall outreach goal was to engage all residents, the outreach consultants focused on building on the Commission’s outreach activities with a targeted effort to reach hard-to-reach populations by working with partner nonprofits and CBOs.
Outcomes:
● In addition to its scheduled monthly public hearings, the Redistricting Commission provided additional opportunities for community input through additional public hearings/special meetings (September 29, October 27, November 1, 15, December 1, 6, 8) and multiple public workshops on using DistrictR (held on
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 8 October 26, 30, November 6, 13, 16, 30, December 4 ) to submit redistricting proposals. The Commission also received a high response from nonprofit and CBO through the online survey, online mapping tool, in-person and virtual workshops, written comment submissions, and oral testimony given at public meetings of the Commission.
● Designed additional outreach materials and messaging for an enhanced communications and media toolkit using creative arts and cultural design elements Design materials included a video, poster, flyer, social media graphics and messaging, newsletter interest, presentation slides with artistic, creative, and clear messaging inspiring public engagement and clearly communicating the four ways Oakland residents can provide input.
Figure 4. Redistricting Commission poster
● Starting from September 19, 2021, the consultant team organized and/or participated in 26 In person and virtual events at locations or times requested by partner nonprofits, CBOs, and members of the public. These were in addition to 42 outreach and engagement events organized directly by Commissioners that began in May, 2021. During public hearings, several Commissioners also noted efforts to undertake their own informal outreach activities. Below is a list of formal Commission outreach events:
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 9
Outreach Events
➔ 5/6/2021 OUSD Districts 1 & 2 joint townhall, 15 North Oakland, Lake Merritt residents, parents, educators
➔ 5/26/2021 City Council District 7 town hall, 20 East Oakland residents, public safety
➔ 6/2/2021 City Council Districts 6 & 7 joint townhall, 12 East Oakland residents, housing, homelessness
➔ 6/23/2021 City Council District 7 townhall, 25 East Oakland residents, transportation
➔ 7/14/2021 City Council Districts 6 & 7 joint townhall, 18 East Oakland residents, animal services
➔ 7/26/2021 Announcement at Special City Council Meeting, 150 City of Oakland residents
➔ 8/2/21 Redistricting Commission Press Release, 350+ email accounts City of Oakland residents via Media News Outlets
➔ 8/2/21 County of Alameda Asian Collaborative, 50,000, Asian Network of Organizations (50 organizations) - Announcement Articles of Redistricting Commissions Work
➔ 8/2/21 Oakland AAPI Unite 140,000, AAPI Coalition of CBO's (28 organizations) focused on San Antonio, Eastlake and Chinatown ➔ 8/2/21 Senior Service Coalition, 35,000 Alameda County (including Oakland) Non-Profits Servicing Low Income Seniors (70 organizations) - Announcement Articles of Redistricting Commissions Work ➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - School Board Member Sam Davis, District 1 - Has agreed to do an insert in Newsletter Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email , North Oakland, West MacArthur to Grizzly Peak residents, students, parents, educators
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - School Board Member Aimee Eng, District 2 Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email Lakeshore Ave to 23rd Ave, Piedmont to Estuary residents, parents, students, educators
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - School Board Member VanDedric Williams, District 3 Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email West Oakland Estuary to West MacArthur Blvd residents, parents, students, educators
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - School Board Member Gary Yee, District 4 Varies - Between 4,000-7,000
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 10 residents by email Skyline Blvd to Foothill Blvd residents, parents, students, educators
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - School Board Member Mike Hutchinson, District 5 Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email 23rd Ave. to 50th Ave residents, parents, students, educators
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - School Board Member Shanthi Gonzales, District 6 Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email Skyline Blvd to International Blvd, Keller to 50th Ave. residents, parents, students, educators
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - School Board Member Clifford Thompson, District 7 Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email Oakland Airport to Skyline Blvd, Keller Ave to 50th Ave. residents, parents, students, educators
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - Jessica Ramos, Student Director , Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email Oakland Students
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - Council Member Dan Kalb, District 1 Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email North Oakland, West MacArthur to Grizzly Peak District 1 residents
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - Council Member Nikki Fortunato Bas District 2 - Will get out to her MailList Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email Lakeshore Ave to 23rd Ave, Piedmont to Estuary District 2 residents
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - Council Member Carroll Fife, District 3 Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email West Oakland Estuary to West MacArthur Blvd District 3 residents
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - Council Member Sheng Thao, District 4 - Did an insert in Newsletter Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email Skyline Blvd to Foothill Blvd District 4 residents
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - Council Member Noel Gallo, District 5 Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email , 23rd Ave. to 50th Ave District 5 residents ➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - Council Member Loren Taylor, District 6 Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email Skyline Blvd to International Blvd, Keller to 50th Ave. District 6 residents
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 11 ➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - Council Member Treva Reid, District 7 Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email Oakland Airport to Skyline Blvd, Keller Ave to 50th Ave.
District 7 residents
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - Council Member Rebecca Kaplan, At Large Varies - Between 4,000-7,000 residents by email City of Oakland residents
➔ 8/3/21 Request to insert a Redistricting Article in their Newsletter - Mayor Libby Schaff - Mayor's Office sent an email to her MailList regarding importance of Redistricting Varies - Between 7,000-10,000 residents by email City of Oakland residents
➔ 8/3/21 County of Alameda Public Health CBO Coalition, 102,000 Community Based Health Organizations serving low income residents (132 organizations) - Announcement Articles of Redistricting Commissions Work ➔ 8/3/21 Oakland Commission on Aging - Note: Commissioners Michael Coleman and Jennifer Seibert will be at their next meeting. Groups working on making Oakland more friendly to seniors - Redistricting on their agenda.
Discussed the 8-2-21 Press Release and Flyer Provided - Commissioner ➔ 8/4/21 Women Organized to Respond to Life-Threatening Diseases (WORLD) Mtg. Q&A 12 Health-related Group Dealing with Diseases Affecting women - Redistricting Powerpoint Presentation - 8-2-21 Press Release and Flyer Provided
➔ 8/4/21 Direct emails to CBO listserv (assistance from intern in the Mayor's Office), 55 CBOs, non-profits, East/West Oakland, arts, health, good government, housing advocacy
➔ 8/4/21 Exploratory discussion with Oakland Zoo about having informational table at a zoo-wide event Oakland residents visiting the Zoo ➔ 8/6/21 Email newsletter to City of Oakland employees, 4,000 Oakland residents, local officials
➔ 8/18/21 Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) - Powerpoint Presentation 10 Asian Americans
➔ 8/20/21 Vietnamese American Community Center of the East Bay - Community Outreach, 3,500 Refugees/Immigrants (Distribute Translated Flyers)/Low Income/East Asians/Southeast Asians/MENA/Latinos) ➔ Sunday, 9/19: AKOMA Market, 30+ East Oakland Residents, primarily African American/Latino
➔ Sunday, 10/3: AKOMA Market, 30+ East Oakland residents, primarily African American/Latino
➔ Thursday, 10/7: Hoover Foster Resident Action Council, 20 Hoover Foster Residents, primarily African American/Latino
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 12 ➔ Saturday, 10/9 East Oakland Collective Resource Fair, 50 East Oakland Residents, primarily African American
Figure 5. Akoma Market Redistricting Outreach
➔ Saturday, 10/9: Eastside Arts Alliance Arts + Healing Event, 30 District 2 & District 5 Residents, primarily African American/Latino ➔ Sunday, 10/17: AKOMA Market, 30+ East Oakland Residents, African American/Latino
➔ Monday, 10/21: All City Council meeting, at McClymonds High School, OUSD Youth Leaders
➔ Sunday, 10/24: Dr. Huey P. Newton Memorial Sculpture Unveiling and Dedication, 150 West Oakland Residents, primarily African American ➔ Sunday, 10/31: Unity Council Dia de los Muertos, 400 residents from Fruitvale, Oakland and surrounding cities, primarily Latino
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 13 ➔ Sunday, 10/31: SPARC-It-Place Harvest Festival, 20 West Oakland Residents, Primarily African American
➔ Monday, 11/1: OUSD Youth Open Forum
➔ Thursday, 11/4: Hoover Foster Resident Action Council Meeting, 22 Hoover- Foster Residents, primarily African American
➔ Friday, 11/5: First Fridays, 20+ Oakland Residents
➔ Saturday, 11/6: Just Cities community engagement design meeting (Fruitvale), 62 Fruitvale residents, Primarily Latino
➔ Saturday, 11/6: Hoover Elementary Harvest Festival, 50 West Oakland and Hoover-Foster Residents, Primarily Latino and African American ➔ Sunday, 11/7: AKOMA Market, 60 East Oakland residents, Primarily African American and Latino
➔ Sunday, 11/7: Jack London Farmers' Market, 20+ Oakland Residents ➔ Monday, 11/8: Allen Temple/NAACP Redistricting Workshop, 65 East Oakland Residents, Primarily African American
➔ Tuesday, 11/9: Oakland Rising Redistricting Mapping Workshop (Virtual) ➔ Saturday, 11/13: Community Engagement Popup at Chinatown (Lincoln Square Park, 261 11th St, Oakland, CA 94607), 50 District 2 Residents, Primarily AAPI Residents
➔ Saturday 11/13 Grand Lake Farmers Market, 50+ Oakland Residents ➔ Friday, 11/19/21 Resilient Fruitvale Collaborative Meeting, 170,000 East Oakland residents, 21 participants (19 Organizations, representing more than 100,000 Oakland residents of Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC), low-income, essential workers and immigrant communities
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 14
Figure 6. Fruitvale Redistricting Outreach
➔ Sunday, 11/21: Oakland Rising Mutual Aid Event w/ Ella Baker Center (Restore Oakland, 1419 34th Ave, Oakland, CA 94601, 200+ Fruitvale Residents
➔ Saturday, 11/27: Old Oakland Block Party (9th and Broadway), 80+ Oakland Residents
➔ Tuesday, 11/30: Oakland Rising Redistricting Town Hall ➔ Thursday, 12/2: Hoover Foster Resident Action Council Meeting, 14 Hoover- Foster Residents
➔ Thursday, 12/2: SPUR: Redrawing Oakland's Political Boundaries, 55 Oakland Residents
➔ Friday, 12/3: First Fridays, 50+ Oakland Residents
➔ Sunday 12/5: AKOMA Market (7101 Foothill Blvd, Oakland, CA 94605), 92 East Oakland residents
➔ Wednesday, 12/8 West Oakland Community Collaborative Monthly Meeting, 21,000 West Oakland residents, 20 participants representing community organizations and service providers serving West Oakland. ➔ Friday, 12/10, 5:00 - 9:00 pm: West Oakland Town Night (West Oakland Youth Center, 3233 Market St, Oakland), 34 West Oakland Residents
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 15 ➔ Friday 12/10, Allen Temple Redistricting Workshop, 20 East Oakland Residents
➔ Monday, 12/13, Oakland Rising Monday Meals Instagram Live on Redistricting, 129 Oakland residents (flatlands)
Figure 7. West Oakland Town Night Redistricting Outreach
Objective 3. Collaborate, Consult and Inform the Redistricting Process.
Outcomes:
● The Consultant team provided periodic updates on the Redistricting Commissioners at public hearings and through email correspondence with Commissioners and City staff throughout the process, and with Commissioners at outreach events.
● The public and nonprofit and CBO partners were informed throughout the process through public hearings, the Commission website, city of Oakland official press releases, and a weekly newsletter sent out by the Consultants. ● The Consultant team provided a progress report summarizing public input each month, outlining next steps that respond to specific ideas and opportunities raised in previous periods.
Targeted Strategy Outcomes
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 16 All public outreach and engagement strategies will aim to achieve the four targets outlined below: Accessibility, Reach, Diversity, and Impact.
Accessibility - The process should serve multigenerational and diverse ability needs.
● In-person workshops were held in ADA-accessible locations near public transit lines. ● In-person and online workshops and events will be scheduled at varying times to allow participation by people who have diverse work schedules. ● In-person events were held in a variety of locations and formats to accommodate hard- to-reach groups such as youth, seniors, immigrant communities, low-income families, and people with disabilities.
● Commissioners attended community sponsored meetings and events to engage the community. These meetings were held in a variety of locations and formats. ● Accessibility considerations included:
○ Language translations (see recommendations for improving future multilingual Commission outreach below.)
○ Multiple modes of engagement (survey, mapping tool, public comment, etc.) ○ Usage of non-technical language in redistricting outreach materials ○ Multiple sites of engagement
■ In-person events and meetings
■ Online events and meetings
■ Signage, flyers, and posters in public spaces
■ Multimedia (email and social media, see recommendations for improving future media Commission outreach below).
Reach - The process should involve and inform as many residents of Oakland as possible.
● The Redistricting Commission’s engagement opportunities were publicized on the Commission website and via email.
● Total number of persons engaged and participants were tracked across all outreach and engagement activities:
○ 1,686 pages of written comments were submitted to the Commission through email, including 63 pages containing more than 625 signatures representing the AAPI community in District 2.
○ 500+ Oral public comments given at 15 commission hearings. ○ 2,012 members of the public were directly engaged at community events, presentations, and intercept activity by the Commissioners working with CBOs on their own and with the outreach consultant team.
○ 846 Online survey responses were submitted
○ 111 Online mapping responses were submitted via DistrictR ○ 100+ physical maps were submitted
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 17 ○ 5000+ flyers distributed (Publications, Posters),
○ Social media (Messages, Images, Video) dissemination
○ 150 video views (on YouTube), and additional views that are not counted through a direct link to the MP4 Video that was also posted on the Commission website. ○ There was no Radio, TV, text, or phone banking (although members of the public could call or email city staff Richard Luna and Corey Alvin who provided support to the Redistricting Commission).
Diversity - The process should engage a range of people that reflects the diversity of interests, ethnicities, incomes, and needs of Oakland’s diverse residents.
Priority populations include historically marginalized and underserved populations and communities, and populations that include Indigenous residents; undocumented residents; unhoused residents, including people with mental health and substance abuse challenges; formerly incarcerated residents; youth; and residents who speak a language other than English at home.
● Outreach activities collected demographic data where practical to help assess how well we reached the full racial, ethnic, and socioeconomically diverse population of Oakland (see above).
● We adjusted the engagement plan to focus on more opportunities for in-depth engagements (vs. broad, casual awareness) to ensure engagement activities resulted in diverse participation, including residents not affiliated with organizations who were new to public participation.
Impact - The public outreach process should inform the Redistricting process for the City of Oakland.
● Major themes, Communities of Interest, and preferences identified through the public engagement efforts will be reflected in the Commission’s deliberations and throughout the Redistricting process.
The public identified communities of interest very expansively, some by neighborhood or area, others by certain landmarks (e.g. around schools, streets, or freeways), and others by issues.
There were at least 100 COIs.
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 18 The consultant team provided summaries requested by Commissioners of input from underrepresented communities received through the survey tool, written testimony, and in person engagement. Key themes identified included:
Representation. Concerns about Latine representation in D6, maintaining Black/Latine citizen voting age population (CVAP) in new districts, the population of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color living in the hills (many of whom, but not all, identify with the flats), and specific neighborhoods that want to remain in tact in West Oakland, East Oakland, the Fruitvale, San Antonio, and other communities. Comments reflected preferences for maps that better captured BIPOC political representation and votes relative to population. Some felt that no district map should be approved with Latine CVAP under 20%. Most comments were concerned about ensuring Black, Indigenous, Latine, Asian/Pacific Islander and other people of color communities can elect representatives of their choosing.
Neighborhood conditions and needs. Comments reflected concerns about overall conditions and needs of residents. For example, District 6 is primarily residential and needs more business and economic development and job opportunities. There are no parks. More public services needed, transportation improvement, safety and beautification. Problems with sideshows, potholes, speeding buses in residential areas, illegal dumping of trash and cars have increased.
The lack of businesses in the district 6 area outside of liquor stores, churches, check cashing and gas stations and the presence of food apartheid Few small businesses are enticed to open shops in deep East Oakland. Playgrounds are run down, have no public bathrooms, and some even lack permanent trash cans. More and more young families are moving into homes elderly people leave but are bringing babies and kids who deserve to grow up in a healthy, safe part of Oakland too. So much neglect in far east oakland south of High st. reflecting the legacy of redlining, renewal, gentrification, and lessening of community voice in local politics. Some commented on the different needs of flats vs hills in the district: Safe streets; faster police response; clean neighborhoods; community shopping areas; entertainment and continued public transportation.
Preserving Existing Neighborhood Boundaries. There were comments on specific neighborhoods that should be kept in tact such as: Eastmont (one suggestion: add south side of International and area around Coliseum near 880 freeway; another suggestion: Eastmont below 580 should stay connected to Eastmont Mall and D6), Ridgemont, Parkridge estates near Skyline HS, Mills College and surrounding neighborhood should stay in current district or keep Mills College and Maxwell park in same district as Mills is a gateway to Maxwell park. Keep the NCPC bordered by Bancroft Avenue to Bancroft Way to International Blvd to 66th to Bancroft in a single district. Currently, there is only a small part of the area in D5.
BIPOC Connections to Hills and Flats. Other comments focused on the hills and flats connection to make sure that districts are not drawn to isolate East Oakland from neighborhoods on the Hills side of the 580 freeway. There are BIPOC households above 580,
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 19 multigenerational owners and renters who also have concerns about wildfire preparedness and vegetation hazard. People who live in hills of East Oakland shop and identify with communities along MacArthur Blvd. Some expressed the desire for a single hills district to give greater voice to the disenfranchised by putting people with more money and thus more influence in one district, noting that the need for representation in the hills of Deep East Oakland should be considered first.
Below are examples of specific comment that reflect the detailed concerns raised among underrepresented community members:
"Residents in the flatlands between Bancroft and San Leandro Blvd that rely heavily on bus transit, attend houses of worship nearby, and spend money in the area business districts (Fairfax, International, etc). Historically Black and Latinx neighborhoods with turnover of new residents due to gentrification. Long-term Black East Oakland residents should be kept in the same district. Residents and businesses in the area along International Blvd should be kept together, for transit, consumption and work opportunity reasons. Latinx families in deeper East Oakland should not be split from Fruitvale neighborhoods where they have a lot of power."
"In addition, the maps should be constructed to not split the Latino population. There are pockets of Latinos and we need to ensure that we inform the redistricting with their needs in mind and the history of lack of political power. In some cases the census numbers are high, but the voting population is low. We need to try to match these two things."
"There is a perception that the last redistricting process, specifically the move of a portion of Maxwell Park from District 4 to District 6, and the jagged borders of District 4, 5 and 6 within Melrose, were politically motivated to remove a council member from office--and that decision resulted in fragmented representation and attention from the city council for the Maxwell Park and Melrose communities over the past decade. For that reason, I'm excited that there is an independent commission to decide the district boundaries this decade--and I'd like to ensure that they consider the context of how the boundaries were set in 2010 against the interests of the Maxwell Park and Melrose communities."
“Support Hills-only district since other maps dilute the Black vote significantly - Having a Hills- only district allows for candidates and electeds to focus on flatland residents - Expand District 2 to 27th Ave to keep the San Antonio neighborhood whole - This neighborhood is one of the most diverse neighborhoods in Oakland and should stay together; splitting it down 23rd splits the voice of the community - Keep neighborhoods surrounding the Coliseum whole (neighborhood is defined as Seminary to 85th Ave and from the water to International) and suggest moving it to D6 - 1) D7 has the airport and - 2) Otherwise there are too many corporate polluters in one district - Keep Westlake community up Broadway to the 580 and over to the suggested South border to allow West Oakland students who attend Westlake Middle School to stay. - Keep Lake Area is two districts - 1) One whole Lake district would be too large for one
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 20 Councilmember to manage - 2) Different sides of the Lake has very different needs - 3) Everyone in the City enjoys the Lake and more representation assists with divergent needs - Neighborhood surrounding Mills College to above 580 and through lower portions off Keller Dr by 580 stays in D6 - Residents identify more with the flatlands and not the hills - Expand c3 on Map H to include Westlake up Broadway and 580 freeway south to the proposed border in order for West Oakland students to continue to be able to attend Westlake Middle School.”
Evaluation:
The goal of reaching at least 20% of Oaklanders (88,000 people) through outreach activities was exceeded through a combination of direct and indirect outreach and engagement activities detailed below: An estimated more than 100,000 Oaklanders were reached through a combination of direct and indirect engagement activities that included the following:
Direct reach included:
300 residents were engaged directly between May to October at town halls, presentations, and events convened by the Commissioners working with City Council, OUSD school board members, and community organizations and coalitions.
1,712 people were engaged directly during 25 in person and virtual activities between October and December), including paper maps filled out at in person events:
● Ella Baker Mutual Aid event: 70+
● Dia de los Muertos: 13
● East Oakland Collective: 11
● Additional maps were collected by Commissioners at outreach events such as Farmer’s Markets and First Fridays.
9,985 emails sent to 1042 subscribers across all seven districts. The following represents the number of emails sent to subscribers between October and February broken down by district:
❖ District 1 - 987
❖ District 2 - 572
❖ District 3 - 946
❖ District 4 - 964
❖ District 5 - 840
❖ District 6 - 503
❖ District 7 - 726
❖ Citywide or district unknown - 4447
59,694+ reached through social media posts and advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, with 1000+ engagement between October and January.
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 21
24 local and regional media members were contacted between November and February.
Indirect Reach included:
● Indirectly more than 100,000 residents were reached through newsletter inserts, email communications, and press releases sent by the Commission working with City Council, city staff, community based organizations and coalitions ● Meetings, emails and multimedia toolkit shared with CBOs, including but not limited to:
○ Black Cultural Zone
○ County of Alameda Asian Collaborative (50 organizations), ○ County of Alameda Public Health CBO Coalition (132 organizations) ○ Deeply Rooted (11 organizations)
○ Oakland AAPI Unite (28 organizations)
○ Oakland Rising (9 organizations)
○ Resilient Fruitvale Collaborative (19 organizations)
○ Senior Service Coalition (70 organizations)
○ The Unity Council
○ Vietnamese American Community Center of the East Bay
○ West Oakland Community Collaborative (20 organizations) ○ West Oakland Cultural Action Network
● Redistricting Commission press releases
● Redistricting updates and information shared by the Mayor and Councilmembers through email communications and at district town halls from May to December.
Limitations: Outreach was impacted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The Commission’s work continued into December 2021, during the holiday period, during which there was a resurgent outreach of a variant (Omicron) of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The Consultant team pulled back from in person engagement at the end of the year and focused on direct outreach through email and social media outreach.
Recommendations for future outreach and engagement:
Beginning public outreach early on in the process is vital, even before initial maps are prepared for public comment.
To ensure key stakeholders are informed, and to enhance the Commission’s effort to get the word out, gathering and updating a community contact list with community based organizations and nonprofits, faith-based organizations, neighborhood associations, community Crime Prevention Committees, BIDs, unions, and more would ensure that a broad range of Oaklanders are informed.
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 22 The use of multiple forms of formal and informal public input was successful and should be continued and expanded, e.g. formal: surveys, direct email, public testimony, virtual and paper maps, and informal: in/person and virtual workshops, seminars, event tabling, and popups.
Translation and accessibility: Although some materials in the Commission’s outreach toolkit were available in Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese along with English, in the future, all materials should be made available in all languages (Flyers, Posters, PowerPoints, Surveys, Newsletters). Spanish language translation was provided at public hearings toward the end of the process in response to public comment. This should be provided, along with Chinese translation services, at future events.
Given the significance of redistricting, many members of the public requested a public mailing be sent to every Oakland resident informing the public about Redistricting. The current budget did not allow for such a mailing, but it would be useful for future Commissions to consider.
Funding for qualitative analysis of written and oral comments would be useful to provide the Commission with a detailed and in-depth, and accurate summary of the comments received and how representative the Comments are in relation to Oakland demographics and underrepresented communities
Some members of the public commented on Zoom accessibility. While Zoom does provide an opportunity for more members of the public to attend meetings, and meetings are available via telephone, additional effort can be put into ensuring everyone is able to connect via phone.
Although constrained by the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person engagement and partnering with Community Based Organizations to reach the public and especially underserved communities remains vital for broader public education about Redistricting, why it occurs, what it affects, and how the public can effectively engage in the process. The outreach consultant team encountered members of the public who did not know about Redistricting, misunderstood the purpose of Redistricting, or did not know that there was an independent commission. There are many members of the public who face the digital divide and do not have an email address or regular online access. Also related to accessibility and more effective engagement, the future Redistricting Commission should consider consulting/partnering with Deeply Rooted organizations to develop more culturally responsive outreach materials and language to discuss Redistricting.
Given that Oakland’s redistricting affects City Council and School Board elections, greater engagement with Oakland Unified School District would benefit future commissions. The Commission did hold two workshops with OUSD high school students, and emails were sent to students and parents, but more sustained engagement through in person and virtual workshops with parents, students, teachers, principals, and other school stakeholders, is vital.
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 23 Mobilizing the Mayor, City council, and all communication channels available to the city, such as including Redistricting information and updates through the Oakland Public Library newsletter and bulletin boards, including strategic signage at public transit stops and stations, and coordinating communications through Oakland Unified School District and Oakland Parks and Recreation, will be vital to ensure that members of the public feel that there was adequate public notice.
While requiring a substantial increased budget, a robust media strategy that incorporates television, radio, and social media would support greater awareness of the work of future Commissions. Media outreach should also begin early in the process to prepare the public for the upcoming public comment period.
Ensuring that posters and materials are distributed to all public libraries would also reach many members of the public.
The Redistricting process is an opportunity for the City of Oakland to further build a network of an increasingly diverse engaged public audience to collectively contribute to the quality of life in Oakland. To this end, the following groups have been identified as target audiences for public outreach and engagement for future Redistricting Commission outreach in addition to the stakeholders identified above:
● Oakland residents
● Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Native American, and Asian communities ● Non-English speakers
● Low-income households
● Families with one parent as head of household
● Unhoused populations
● Immigrants
● Youth and students
● Residents with limited internet access
● LGBTQ+
● People with mental health and substance abuse challenges ● Formerly incarcerated residents
● Seniors and older residents
● People with disabilities and their advocates
● Residents living in rental units
● Nonprofit and Community-based organizations (CBOs)
● Neighborhood associations
● Arts and cultural organizations
● Arts advocates including local artists, musicians, and performers
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 24 Timeline & Schedule of Events
Timing Purpose
September 30 - October 13,
2021
Outreach to partner CBOs in Deeply Rooted, organizations with upcoming activities, and the draft list of potential partner CBOs to engage in outreach process and promote
written comments, online map submission (once the
Redistricting online mapping tool goes live), and public comment at Redistricting Commission Public Hearings.
Disseminate information on Oakland Redistricting.
- Target East Oakland Collective Resource Fair
(October 9)
Plan Enhanced Communications Toolkit and Landing Page
linking to Redistricting Commission website.
October 1, 2021 Submit outreach progress report to City and Commission.
October 13, 2021 Redistricting Commission Public Hearing. (Additional special Commission hearing held October 27).
October 14 - November 10,
2021
Review progress following each Commission
meeting with Redistricting Commissioners and City
staff
Encourage the public to continue to participate through submitting public comment and maps on COIs and
proposed Redistricting Plans for consideration:
Kickoff meeting with Deeply Rooted CBOs to engage with
outreach and engagement messaging and dissemination,
and to discuss potential hosting of additional public
engagement activities with the Commission.
- Outline of CBO/NP Roles in partnership.
Develop Enhanced Communications Toolkit and Landing
Page linking to Redistricting Commission website.
- Develop new posters, flyers, digital assets
- Translate print and digital assets.
Disseminate information on Oakland Redistricting.
- Develop mailing list of partner organizations
- Share official Commission Communications Toolkit
and enhanced toolkit with partner CBOs.
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 25 - 1 weekly post on all social media accounts;
encourage partners to share on social media
weekly.
- Email/texting campaign (text with survey links, text
for commission meeting links, text to review map
link).
- Weekly disseminate print flyers, posters, postcards
to partner organizations and agencies.
- Begin running radio ads.
Community information sessions and mapping with Project Team
- Planning at least 1 in-person outreach engagement
event at AKOMA Market and Lincoln Summer
Nights in Lincoln Park (through October 21).
- Plan to host at least 1 online outreach engagement
event with partner CBOs.
- Begin targeting weekly events promoting online
mapping tools, survey, written comments, and
attendance at November Redistricting Commission
Public Hearing.
-
Review progress following each official public
outreach event.
- Track outreach and engagement in terms of
reach, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility.
November 1, 2021 Submit outreach report to the City and Commission.
November 10, 2021 Redistricting Commission Public Hearing (Additional special Commission hearings held November 1 & 15).
November 11 - December 8,
2021
Review progress following each Commission
meeting with Redistricting Commissioners and City
Staff.
Disseminate information on Oakland Redistricting:
- 1 weekly post on all social media accounts;
encourage partners to share on social media
weekly.
- Disseminate press releases; target ethnic media
print and online outlets.
- Email campaign (text with survey links, text for
commission meeting links, text to review map link).
- Weekly disseminate print flyers, posters, postcards
to partner organizations and agencies.
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 26 Community information sessions and mapping with Project Team
- Planning at least 1 in-person outreach engagement
event at AKOMA Market.
- Plan to host at least 1 online outreach engagement
event with partner CBOs.
- Develop a mailing list of partner organizations and
share official Communications Toolkit and
enhanced toolkit.
- Continue targeting weekly events promoting online
mapping tool, survey, written comments, and
attendance at November Commission Public
Hearing.
- Partner with Deeply Rooted Community
Engagement events between November 6-21:
- Oakland Asian Cultural Center
- Fruitvale Village
- AKOMA Market
Review progress following each official public
outreach event.
- Track outreach and engagement in terms of
reach, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility.
December 8, 2021 Redistricting Commission Public Hearing (Additional special Commission hearings held December 1, 6, 13, 30).
December 9 - 31 Review progress following Commission meeting with Redistricting Commissioners and City staff.
Continue to disseminate information on Oakland
Redistricting
January 1- 31, 2022 Continue to disseminate information on Oakland Redistricting
(Additional special Commission hearings held
January 5, 19, 26).
February 1 - 28 Continue to disseminate information on Oakland Redistricting
Oakland Redistricting Commission Public Outreach Report | 27 (Additional special Commission hearings held
February 8 & 23)
March 9, 2022 Redistricting Commission Public Hearing
March 1 - 31 Prepare and submit Final Engagement Report detailing metrics on target goal of 20% of Oaklanders