City Council - Special Meeting

A lot of misinformation, information. People haven't spent a lot of time going to Raleigh back and forth and that sort of thing, too. So I think it's time that we go ahead and make a decision as a council what we're going to do as far as addressing this hospital, 1038. With that.

I just have a quick question, sir. Yes, ma'am. You mentioned to see whether or not anyone has a resolution for or against. I didn't get an announcement that a resolution was asked to be presented that opposed 1038. I was just given an announcement that we had this special meeting regarding the resolution, but I personally didn't receive any contact as far as saying that we're considering a resolution that opposed or resolution that was for. I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything on that particular point.

I sent an email yesterday out to City Council at 4.19 p.m. yesterday. In that, I mentioned Council Willingham. having a resolution. Well, let me read you the email since you didn't see it. I've called this special meeting on Tuesday night so that we can hopefully come to a consensus once and for all on whether our council supports or opposes HB 1038. Councilman Willingham, I believe you already have a draft resolution in opposition, and Councilmember Edwards, I believe you already have a draft resolution in favor. And I said if you could circulate those via email for everyone's consideration before the meeting, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you. Did you get the email? No, I didn't, but that doesn't mean it's not in here.

And if I may, Mayor Phillips... Forgive me, everyone in the audience. I'm not finding my email. Oh, I'm sorry. Is there a motion on the floor? When you're looking for it, you can't find it. My apologies. On Sunday, June the 21st at 3 p.m., I sent the following to Mayor and Council and Mr. Ray to please answer the following. One, who requested this special meeting and the person that offered to second it? Number two, why does this special meeting constitute as an emergency? Number three, what is the resolution information that council needs to discuss during this special meeting for consideration? Number four, what evidence will Ms. Welch, our city attorney, provide the council that is needed to consider regarding House Bill 1038? Number five, what information has the University of North Carolina School of Government provided in writing that council needs to consider regarding House Bill 1038? Number six, what information has the Board of Elections provided in writing that council needs to consider regarding House Bill 1038? And number seven, what information has the North Carolina State Board of Elections provided in writing that council needs to consider regarding House Bill 1038? Because on Saturday, Council received an email from our city clerk at approximately 4.58 p.m. on this past Saturday, a public notice for the city council meeting, this special meeting. Unfortunately, the council just had a city council meeting four days later. We were given no prior notice, so when we received that email, Announcing to the public for today's meeting, we found out about the meeting the same time the public found out about the meeting. We have not had a chance to look at any of the artifacts, documentations as it relates to this meeting today. We have not had an opportunity to review to compare, contrast. So even council has been limited in our ability to scrutinize the data. Because as Council Member Smith has indicated, if you're going to have something that you're going, if you want the public and council to consider, and anyone that has been coming to the city council meetings, We'll know that information has been provided up until Saturday to give all of the council members an opportunity to review certain documentation as it relates to our city council meeting. And we have not received anything. In addition, Mrs. Marshburn and Ms. Welch, I specifically asked for a copy. of the Republican Party letter, and I don't have it.

I specifically sent that in an email today requesting that documentation, and I don't see it. Excuse me, Dr. Washington. I did receive your email, and I did print that off. I can go back upstairs and get that off of our finance printer. Yes, because I asked for it. I did receive that. Okay, thank you, ma'am. Yes, ma'am, you're welcome. Thank you. While we wait, Mayor, sir, thank you.

Let me get one issue at a time, okay? Thank you. Just wanted to make sure I got that out.

Our staff attorney, can you answer these questions that Dr. Washington had?

Yes, sir. I believe that there was an email sent out responding to those questions. First of all, the local rules for the Jacksonville City Council, for procedure, rules of procedure, do allow the mayor, the mayor pro tem, or two members of city council to call a special meeting. That's under subsection 2 and then paragraph A. And to the best of my knowledge, this meeting was called properly with 48 hours of notice given to the council members and the manner of the agenda. There's actually no requirement for a written agenda, but I know the mayor did put out in that notice what he did want discussed tonight, which was that resolution. I believe the other question you had was about- Well, question number two was,

Why does this meeting or special meeting constitute as an emergency? Because currently right now, the House rule vice chairman, excuse me, displaced House Bill 1038 in chambers last week. And currently, the House... committee is not scheduled to meet any time this week with regards to on their calendar to discuss House Bill 1038. So what constitutes an emergency of a 48 hour It's not life or death. Nobody was in danger. And here is the disrespect, is the fact that we were given such notice in which no hurt, harm, or emergency crisis constituted the meeting because some of us are on vacation. We're spending time with our families. So to circumvent the process, by calling a special meeting, which now, if the public does not know, you have no voice. You can't speak. When this item was brought before us, our taxpayers, let me just eliminate the word constituents, our taxpayers that pays all city employees, including the mayor and council's salary. They were able to come out and speak. They had that opportunity, that platform to say their piece, whatever their views were. They had that opportunity. Now, by calling a special meeting, we have now silenced our taxpayers. So what I'm saying is, at one point, up until Saturday, the public was able to come out and speak their piece, even to write emails. And even for those that are challenged that didn't want to write an email, they still could come in these council chambers and speak their piece. Now, because of a move of circumventing and being able to use your power in a certain way, you are now restricting our taxpayers from saying their piece. They have a right to speak. And to say that they don't have a right to speak, that's abuse of power. That's gross negligence of a leader. And that's what we've done. And the disrespect that council was not afforded the opportunity with scrutiny to even talk about the authenticity of a new House bill that doesn't even clue the history as to why the bill was needed is totally absent from this new resolution.

So that is certainly a matter for debate, and it is certainly a matter for argument. But the mayor's question to me, and I believe your question to me as well, is whether or not the process was followed. There was no process circumvented in the calling of the special meeting to the best of my knowledge. To the best of my knowledge, the law has been followed in creating the rules of procedure for city council. And to the best of my knowledge, the rules of procedure for the city council were followed tonight in the calling of this special meeting.

Just know we had a city council meeting. on Thursday and what changed between, in four days, what changed?

And that's obviously not a question I can answer, but right now we are following the rules and the rules do not allow for public comment at special or at emergency meetings. And I do want to draw the distinction. The rules talk about special meetings under one paragraph and they talk about emergency meetings under a different. And this was called under a special meeting.

Ms. Smith.

Oh, no, sir. I was just acknowledging that I did find the email.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the agenda.

All right. There's a motion to approve the agenda.

Second.

And a second. Further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed?

Aye.

Did you get the count? All right. So there.

Oh, we're waiting on the letter.

We're waiting on the letter from the letter.

Mr. Prince went upstairs to get the letter. Can we wait till we have the letter? Sure. Thank you. I can forward it to everyone's emails if you'd like. So you can see it on your phone.

It's printed out already, right?

It is. Yes, sir.

What's the motion that's on the floor? There's no motion. We're waiting on the paper.

Mr. Willingham, did you vote to approve the agenda? Negative. You voted negative, okay.

What was the vote count, Madam Clerk? Five to two. Five to two, thank you.

Couldn't be five to two.

Excuse me. Sorry. Four to two. I apologize.

Who voted which way, if you don't mind?

You and Dr. Washington voted negative. Mr. Sosa, Mayor from Tim Edwards, Mr. Yanero, and Councilwoman Smith voted in the affirmative.

Obviously having a problem finding it.

No, sir. I'm trying to find out if he can get into finance due to the fact that we're having innovations done to the carpet upstairs in CMO. We're having to use a finance printer. So I'm just making sure that Mr. Prins can get into the finance office.

Mayor Phillips, there's a question. There's an answer that Mr. Massey provided, and I want to know, do I have the right to read that question with the answer that he provided so that the audience will know?

Certainly.

Okay, thank you, sir. Oftentimes, okay, so my question, particularly for number five, what information has the University of North Carolina School of Government provided in writing that council needs to consider regarding House Bill 1038? And according to the answer that Mr. Massey sent to me, And I quote, the city manager's office, city attorney, and the city clerk are not aware of any written feedback provided by the University of North Carolina School of Government related to House Bill 1038. Question number six. What information has the Onslaught County Board of Election provided in writing that council needs to consider regarding House Bill 1038? And I quote the response, the city manager's office, the city attorney, and the city clerk are not aware of any written feedback provided by the Onslaught County Board of Elections regarding House Bill 1038. Number seven, what information has the North Carolina State Board of Elections provided in writing that council needs to consider regarding House Bill 1038? The response, and I quote, the city manager's office, city attorney, and the city clerk are not aware of any written feedback provided. And it states by the Onslow County Board of Elections regarding House Bill 1038. It doesn't reference it back to the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

I don't understand the relevance there as far as the Board of Elections. I mean, is there something in particular?

Oh, absolutely.

Please.

When, excuse me.

You say that was a mistake on my part?

That's okay. But this is not going to be a mistake. When I attended the North Carolina House Rules and Committee meeting on last Wednesday, Forgive me, I don't have the dates, but I was there in person. Representative Wyatt Gable informed the committee that 99% of Camp Lejeune residents are registered voters outside of Jacksonville. And the reasoning for obtaining some information is, how do you know that? Unless you know the name of every single Marine and Sailor that lives aboard Camp Lejeune or Marine Corps Air Station New River, unless you know their names, unless you know the state in which they live in, you would need to contact each individual state and three United States territories. to ascertain that information. So without knowing the names of every single service member stationed at Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base and Marine Corps Air Station New River, where'd you get that number from? No, no, I'm not saying, no, that's not for you to answer. Because the mayor asked me, he didn't see the relevance. So the relevancy, number one, was for the Onslaught County Board of Elections to provide the information. And if they can't provide it, then the State Board of Elections, in which all 100 counties is under the auspices of the State Board of Elections, Do they have it? And according to Onslaught County Board of Elections, and according to North Carolina State Board of Elections, they don't have that information. The only information they have is North Carolina voters. So how do you know if a person who's not voting in the city of Jacksonville in Onslaught County, where, as a matter of fact, I would love to see an affidavit to prove your 99% because if that is not true, you stood before that House committee and communicated something that not only a North Carolina regulatory agency such as the Onslaught County Board of Elections and the State Board of Elections is refuting. So where did your data come from? Do you realize how much manpower that would be? And if the Marines or service members did not sign a waiver, It's not necessarily privileged communication because they're not living in the state, so you're not asking for a state agency to provide that information. You're asking for another state agency. So you would have to receive, other than the FOIA, if they're willing to sign it for you, how are you gonna ascertain that data? What, within April, May, June, July? We don't even have a budget. We don't even have a confirmed budget for the state of North Carolina. So where would you, one, have the manpower resources and the financial resources?

All right. That's enough.

Do we need a recess for the meeting?

We're going to stand recess for a second. Don't leave.

If local agency didn't provide it, I was looking for the state agency that supersedes over the local agency and governs all 100 county state board of elections, respectively. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, are you ready?

Discussion.

Well, we don't have a motion to discuss at the moment.

Motion to table. Is there a problem?

No, no, no.

OK. Second.

If I have a motion and a second. A motion to table.

Call the vote.

All those? Discussion. Any discussion?

That is discussion.

Excuse me. Any discussion on that motion? Yes.

Please, by all means. This is unprecedented. And I've been around about 20 years, never seen anything like this, never seen anything so surreptitious. It should be enough that the legislature tries to sneak and do this. When we go there, they take it off the calendar. And overnight, they put it back on the calendar. And then we have to go first thing in the morning. That's not democracy. That's not what you deserve. Now, we have council playing games. There's nothing special about this occasion. that justified this meeting. Nothing. No emergency. Isn't it crazy that we just met last week? And the same, I say, dilatory tactics. Because when we started the discussion in the meeting room, And this chambers was full of people. We didn't even really know it. They wanted to hear from the people. So we set another meeting so they could hear from the people.

They heard from the people.

They didn't like what they heard from the people.

So it didn't matter. Hearing from the people did not matter. And so when we tried to move it forward, Council Member Smith made the motion. When we were last here on Tuesday, Everybody needed more information. When I presented my resolution, I sent it in advance. Everyone had the resolution in advance. We went through paragraph by paragraph on resolution. And I'll show it to you again. Everybody had an opportunity to speak. If there was something that was disapproved, what did we do? Removed it. There's no debate. We just removed it. Paragraphs got removed because one person didn't agree with the facts. But when we finished, everything was factual. And the mayor agreed with it. Everything that we modified—and it's on tape. You can listen to it. What we didn't do was take an official vote. But all you have to do is look at the record and you'll see that every little thing that you're going to see when it comes up was agreed to. Now, we come back this week, in days, with a resolution that contradicts some of the things that are in the earlier resolution. That's just lying. And I can point it out to you, and when we get there, I'll point it out to you, the lies. Now, I'm running around, I'm scurrying around, because they don't have my information available for you to see. How fair is that? And I've been working on it, and I have witnesses who know how much I've been working on it. How fair is that? Now, look how we treated the people who couldn't make up their minds. Look how we treated them. Who made the motion at the last meeting to table? Because they asked for it because they said they needed more information. Now, Terrell, you got it? You got my copies?

I don't have copies for everyone.

No, for me?

Yes, that's it.

Right here?

That's it.

Okay. So, I showed that concern. and consideration for my fellow council members. Tabled it. And this is what we get. If, you know, that's what we kind of grow to, that's how we behave with civil treatment. We want to treat others the way we want to be treated. Don't you expect that of your government? Where is it? It's not here tonight. Thank you. They know. Okay. Yeah, thank you. But all of this lack of preparation is just not deserving of you. It's not deserving of your time. And why is it even needed? Because somebody else was lying. So they're trying to catch up with the lie to save the people in Raleigh who were lying. And you're gonna see letters tonight to demonstrate This was so. Now, I have about 10 questions for the attorney. She's ready.

Am I?

Perhaps. But it's not fair to the attorney. Some of those questions she may tell you, well, I don't want to give an opinion in public session. And she shouldn't have to. But the reason she's put in that predicament is because of this underhandedness that you don't deserve. If this were properly before you, we could meet with the attorney, which is what we do, and we could discern proper questions. We can prepare. You don't get the benefit of that tonight. because this comes on Saturday. Now, ask yourselves, all of this is to get this through, approved. Do you think the people who will be voting for it knew that there was a meeting tonight and knew to be here? If they didn't, they never would have set the meeting. They never would have said it. So I'm going to ask council to do what I've done with them, regardless of any disagreement. And I'm going to ask council to serve the people. And we can take a poll tonight, okay? I know somebody wanted to wear red shirts. Welcome. We'll take a poll tonight. It should matter. But it don't, because they already decided. And you probably know that. But it's okay. We deal with that. But I'm going to ask them anyway.

Hang on just a minute, Mr. Willingham. Let's take a real quick recess. I want to find out what's going on with the live stream. Okay. Can you take care of that?

Is it right now, sir?

It's being recorded. All right, Mr. Willingham.

Thank you, Mayor. If I may, if you oppose HB 1038, so the cameras and everybody watching can get a sense of what we're talking about, would you please stand? Thank you. Thank you very much. If you support HB 1038, would you please stand? Okay. And two at the back, I believe. I stand all the time, by the way. So take one away.

We're not going to count numbers because, you know, I don't think anybody on the council, I don't know if the council people invited people to come or what.

We've been doing this. People know to come. Okay. Okay, so I'm going to ask them to extend the same courtesy that I have extended to them and support tabling this so we can do it the right way and everybody can have the information that they need.

All right, there's a motion and a second. And was there any other discussion?

Yes.

Okay.

Hold on just one second, sir.

Okay.

When council received our email on this Saturday Do you know what this Saturday was? It's Juneteenth. Here's what I know, having sat in an anthropological cast at East Carolina University. If you look to your immediate left for the audience and you look to your immediate right We're only separated by six degrees of separation. That no matter what this looks like, it's in your family. And if we really want to get specific, it's in your mitochondrial DNA of your mother.

All right. Wait a minute. No responses from your audience. You're trying to elicit a response.

Jesus. Please know that regards to this House Bill 1038, council did not ask for this. Council did not come to Mayor Phillips as a collective body to say, we want to sit down and we want to review the way our election system is. That never happened. We didn't ask for this. So the question is, if we didn't ask, who did? Who asked for this? Because it was working. And it's working because if you meet the criteria for the state of North Carolina, either civilian or military, if you meet the criteria, you become a registered voter. That means you get to vote. That's your right. Now what you choose to do with that vote As the House Rule Committee says, that's not our nickel in the quarter.

We don't control voter apathy.

It's up to that individual. As long as that individual is 9 times 2, 18, it's up to them. It's their right to self-determination. So we didn't ask for this. But now we have to deal with something that our legislators, particularly our two representative, possibly three, preemptively decided to use their power in a way that wants to hurt, harm, and disfranchise others. Because again, it has been presented Our representatives for Onslaught County and for the state are elected how? District, aka ward. Everybody in this room knows, if you look at the state of North Carolina and you look at I-40, If House Bill 1038 is such a wonderful bill, then why didn't Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Gable and Mr. Carson Smith, let me use their correct terms, the honorable representatives that represents us in Raleigh, why didn't you make an amendment to the state of North Carolina Constitution to change the way that you're voted? They're not going to do that, and I'm going to tell you why. Anything, any person east of I-40 knows if that were true and we elected our representatives at large, it will come west of I-40. Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Greensboro, Charlotte, A strong Winston-Salem and a strong possible maybe 7th Asheville. We would not have representation because Eastern North Carolina would not have the numbers to send our delegation because the delegation would come from the Piedmont. So you want to benefit from a system that benefits you in a district election. And mind you, if you live in District 14, you can't vote for the person that lives in District 15. You can't vote for the person that lives in District 16, and so forth. But they want to impose upon us that our system is flawed. It has been argued that it takes 1,000 votes for one council member to be elected to the city council. And it takes somebody else about 200. Well, I can go ahead and tell you they're talking about me. So let me just put it out there if you don't know. Let's connect the dots. When the lawsuit of Robert Joseph McLaughlin, Lori Reddy Giovanni, please forgive me if I mispronounce your name, and Juan Carlos Bellatrain, when they filed their federal lawsuit against the Onslaught County Board of Elections and its members and the Jacksonville City Council, they said that this system was discriminatory against white individuals. And they also claim in this lawsuit—hold on—it's been said that if you live in a certain part of town, you need a certain amount of votes. So I tried to do some math. So let's talk about when this lawsuit was filed. It was supposed to take place beginning 2023. That was when the mayor— Mr. Sosa and myself was up for reelection. So, they were talking about me. And now with House Bill 1038, it's supposed to take place upcoming election for 2027, in which the mayor, Mr. Sosa, and myself are up for reelection. So I did a little bit of math from the November 2023 election in which the last time the three of us ran. So they put my business out there, so I only think it's fair. We need to talk about it. So roughly out of 72,000 people that live in the city of Jacksonville, according to the 2020 census, I may have left off a few, but for just even numbers. Mayor Phillips, who is elected at large, which means all 72,000 who are eligible to vote can vote, correct? So Mayor Phillips received 1,205 votes, which basically roughly is 0.02%. Gets better. Mr. Sosa, that same election, received 516, which equates to .03. So I'm just saying, if you're going to put and compare, you need to start looking at the math in its totality, as opposed to cherry-picking. Now, what the audience may not know is when the redistricting, when we went through, when the nation went through COVID in 2020, unfortunately, the United States census data information was, we were going to receive it late. And that's important because we use that information to draw the district lines, or excuse me, the ward lines in the city of Jacksonville. So that information was going to come to us late. So there was a Senate bill, Senate Bill 722, that allowed the city of Jacksonville to delay the elections until we could receive the census data. Then the mayor and council, we had to appoint, elect, we each had a choice who we wanted to be on that redistricting committee. It's funny if you take a look at the video. I'm doing Monday morning quarterbacking, so let's roll back the tape. Prior to the 25 election, when you looked at this council, And I'm not saying this in a negative way, Mayor Phillips, or I'm not saying this in a negative way to the public. I just want you to just think about something. For 35 years, we've always had five white council members and two council members of color. When council appointed the redistricting committee and we, and at that time, Ms. Smith, Mr. Unaro, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Willingham was not on council. It was just Mayor Phillips, Mr. Sosa, and myself and other members who were not here. We were on council. And we selected who we wanted to be on that redistricting committee. And guess what? That redistricting committee was the flip of the council. It was five African Americans and two white gentlemen. And some people became angry because they didn't get a seat at the table. Some people was even more the angrier. Let's just call it out. We have some people who don't look like us that's making some decisions that's concerning us. And that was very unsettling. And it's still unsettling.

Point of order, Mr. Mayor?

Yes, ma'am.

The motion on the floor right now is to table the matter, and this discussion seems to be more about supporting or not supporting the resolution based on a lot of information, good information, relevant information, but does it fit the motion of tabling?

Absolutely, because here's what I'm getting ready to say. Here's what I'm getting ready to say, and I'll conclude. I can wrap it up. The letter that the Republican Party wrote... Okay? But here's where I want to do the crue de gras. If you're not familiar, former Onslaught County manager, Mr. David Smitherman, filed a lawsuit in Superior Court. And in his lawsuit, he alleged the following.

Exactly where are you trying to go here? I'm getting ready to tell you. I'm trying to go to Ms. Edwards' point of order there because you're talking about something that doesn't have any relevancy here.

In his lawsuit, he alleged that There have been engaged meetings purportedly on behalf of the county with the city council of Jacksonville without prior knowledge or consent of county government, and it violates state law. So with the point I'm going, what type of meetings behind the meetings is this lawsuit alleging that everybody that deserved a seat at the table wasn't at the table because how do we know that House Bill 1038 wasn't the main menu? So, Madam Clerk, I would like to introduce all of this evidence as part of this meeting. Mr. Torell, Mr. Blackmon, can you hand this to him? Thank you, sir.

All right, further discussion?

Yes, sir.

It needs to be relevant to this motion.

I'm well aware of parliamentary procedures, also what is germane to the topic. And in doing so, and that's not in being in disrespect, but I've listened to everyone else speak. And I don't think I've been disrespectful to this council or to the city of Jacksonville in any statement that I've ever made. As it comes to the fact that we're requesting to table this, although the vote hadn't been made yet, I want to talk to a point that I believe all of this falls under, and that's integrity. As a Marine, that was one of the first things I learned. was integrity. In fact, you could not go on a board to get meritoriously promoted if you couldn't tell that board what was the most important trait. And if you didn't say integrity, most likely you weren't going to come out. As a pastor, and let me say this before. Ladies and gentlemen, I understand the passion. I understand the drive and what's going on here and the weight of this moment. But our mayor has asked us not to make any comments. He's asked us not to clap, not to snap, not to even make comments, not even, you know, without mm-mm-mm. So let's honor that, because I don't want that to be negatively reflected upon this moment. So let's honor that. But as a pastor, I'm subject to the scriptures that say whoever walk in integrity walks securely, but whoever takes crooked paths will be found out. And I say that to say we didn't ask for this bill. I played before the people as well as privately to the mayor, as well as our city managers, the statement in which Representative Gable and Representative Shepard made to an elected body indicating why they submitted that bill. They heard lies, and let's call them what they were. And that is an integrity violation. Why? Because integrity is in its simplest form is defined as the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles, being whole, upright, and consistent in character, even when no one is watching. From the moment this bill came before us, the integrity of several individuals was already in question. As this time has progressed, This body and Jacksonville was presented with factual statements that were made as into why this bill was presented. Not only that, the lies that were spoken Document after document, comment after comment, information from the board, from the election board, I'm sorry, from the board of elections have been presented showing the numbers, showing the facts, showing how many active or inactive or registered voters that we have in the city respectively to the ward. We were even to the point, well I say we because we are the council, but specifically two individuals asked for the people's reaction, response. Want to hear the people. I was even forwarded a comment that our Mayor Pro Tem soliciting the people to come or provide her with what they want. And when it was done, There was no response. After being asked, we brought them into this. They didn't ask to be in this. We brought them into this. Integrity violation. Because even when you said you wanted to hear them, it wasn't enough. Then we get to this place, whereas, I mean, and I think the last meeting, I was more passionate than I've ever been, because I just could not understand the people that I work with that I have been honest, forthright with. I could not understand why it couldn't be reciprocated when it came to, what is your stance on this bill? No one on this council, no one in Jacksonville could ever say they did not know where Mickey Smith stood, because that's what I got voted for, to make sure that I told the people the truth. And when I lay down at night, I know I did my job. But then to get up on Saturday after a holiday weekend with Facebook being plastered with hate and just some terrible things, even from people that are sitting in this room, to see that we're forced to be here on a Tuesday that we had other things planned, to make a decision that I believe the timing was unfair, I believe there were several meetings being made before this meeting. Of course, there were—one statement said that you couldn't put this on the agenda unless somebody had a conversation somewhere, and then already knowing what you wanted to do in getting here. I just want people to be honest. And I know this is one of those pastor things, those Christian things, those being a Marine or Marine don't lie, because once a Marine, always a Marine. I guess I'm still stuck in that. But the integrity has been lost by the representatives who put this bill into play. And it was proven when they said that the mayor was in 100 percent agreement. But in my conversation with you, sir, you said that he—you didn't say that. When it was said that the majority of the council was in agreement, when, in the meeting, all but one person said, they didn't talk to me. Even when, after the people spoke, and Councilman Lazaro, excuse me, Councilman Yanero said, well, now I want to talk to the people who put the bill in, they have not spoken to anybody since then. They don't have to. Why? Because they're doing something that I believe, this is mickeyology here, I believe only a small handful of individuals in this city outside the city wants done to take away the authority in which this city, this military whole city, this city that honors—that has the authority to make decisions on behalf of what I really truly believe a melting pot in and of itself. But because of that small group, we're here dividing a city. We're here bringing up feelings and comments that at one time was only said in the privacy of your own mind, but are being blatantly stated and being put out on social media. I'm embarrassed for the city of Jacksonville. I'm embarrassed for this council. My heart breaks that there may be even one, two, three individuals that feel pressured into making a decision, not based on what the city wants. And I even heard a comment saying that we don't know, well, maybe members of the council invited you guys out. I didn't ask for anybody to come out. There were two individuals, councilwoman, Cindy Edwards and Councilman Mike Yanaro asked to hear from the public. Whether it was physically being here or whether it was by email, it was overwhelmingly placed before us that the city opposes this bill. But now we're here because somebody may have the votes. Now we're here, and I know I didn't—other than getting an email last night, I may have wanted to present a resolution, but if I got it last night, I wouldn't have been able to do it. I wasn't given an opportunity to put in my own resolution what I think we should do. But if we're going to vote, let's vote to table this, because this bill is not on the agenda. If we're going to vote, vote with integrity. Vote. what you know is right and what's righteous, because there is a difference. I love the fact that 600-plus individuals found it in their heart to place me here. And I love the fact that, regardless of how many place me here, that I'm going to lead and I'm going to be honest to every last person of Jacksonville. And I believe that this meeting is unjust. I believe that this meeting had ulterior motives. I believe that this meeting is simply to get a resolution to put in the hands of two individuals who have blatantly lied to an elected body about an entire city wanting this, but to put it in their hands. so that they can use that as leverage to put it back before the Rules Committee. That's what I believe. But I also believe in God. And I also believe that what's done in the dark will come out in the light. Mayor, sir, that's all I have.

Thank you.

Any other discussion? Mr. Mayor, did you have anything you wanted to say? We have heard by email and text and Facebook posts and direct message and phone calls and present in council chambers. We've heard a lot for a long period of time. over couple different meetings and uh... every day in between since it's been a journey for sure feelings and opinions run deep on this one there are some legalities that will come out when this is discussed that have bearing on that as well there are accusations of lying, there are accusations of integrity failures, there are accusations of all kinds of things, and I don't believe for one minute that all, every person sitting at this dais had in their mind what they would like to see happen before they got here. I don't think it's any one group or any one color of person. I think every single one of us has in mind something that they would either like to see or like to hear or are considering. Nobody walked in the room with no clue what they were thinking about this issue because it's been before us and we've heard legal briefs from our attorney, input from others, validating the legal briefs and legal advice that we received, and all of the discussion since. So it's not a new topic exactly. We've been talking about it for weeks and weeks. But the motion is to table, sir. So unless Mr. Sosa wants to say something.

I'm ready to vote, to be honest with you.

Let's vote, sir.

Okay. All those in favor of the motion to table indicate so by raising your hand. All opposed? You want to get bounced out? You want to leave?

I didn't hear what you said.

I said you.

I'd like to make a motion. Go right ahead. to redraw the lines in compliance with Kalei.

Second.

Do I need to explain the motion or anything? Sure. If I need to, but... Okay, all right. I'll explain. So, discussion. The case that everybody is supposedly reacting to doesn't justify the reaction. And I'll get into it again, but Calais just says, and this is the Supreme Court, Louisiana versus Calais. Calais just says that it dictates how you draw boundaries, to sum it up. They want compactness. They want contiguousness. And we have not had the opportunity to do that. And that would be the first thing you would do if you were serious about complying with the law. And we have no objection to doing that. I asked the mayor maybe a month ago to let us do that. And didn't get a response. But that's the first thing you want to do if you want to comply with the law. Read it. See what it's telling you to do. Now, you're going to hear... Some misinformation, and this is one of the things you're going to hear. Somehow from the Clay case, it's forcing us to do at large. They're not going to show you one sentence in Clay that says that because it just deals with drawing boundaries. They're doing that because that's what they want to do. In Calais, and you can pull it up on your phones, you're going to see there's a specific discussion saying that at large voting systems have been found to be discriminatory. So if the case is telling you that, why is that your option of first resort? Because it's not about the case. It's not about the cases. Because we have our own case. We have the case that says that at-large systems are discriminatory. And you're going to hear the mince words and try to read the case in a way where there's some voluntary dismissal. But I'm going to show you that lie. And we have the case that says that the Joe McLaughlin case, that was kicked out of court. So you're going to hear about low voting in particular wards. Why didn't they take it to court? What was that argument when they were in court? That's where you present it. It was dismissed. It was kicked out. Because that's the law. But they don't want to deal with the law. They want to seize on something, no voting. When the person that filed the case, the lead plaintiff, ran for the third congressional district, third congressional district included campus unit had 131,000 less voters than the fourth congressional district. So that really can't be an issue. of any logic. So we, you know, the Supreme Court decisions, we could go to Plessy versus Ferguson. We could come up to Brown versus Board of Education. You know what one says and then the other, you know, separate but equal. Blacks don't have any rights. But that changes. So that's the flux of Supreme Court cases. But we're not arguing a Supreme Court case. We're saying we will comply with the Supreme Court case. The reason the wards were drawn the way they were is because we won the lawsuit. That's a really important point. And I showed it to you before at some point. But they say that just some general kind of compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is not enough, where you just want to, out of the goodness of your heart, draw some lines that include black representation. If you just do that, that's what they say happened. But that's not what happened. And I'll show you why. I don't want to belabor that. But I'll show you why when we get into that discussion. But all we got to do is redraw the lines. It's too simple. The reason we're not going to do it is because they don't care what you think. They don't care about how we look. Because this is embarrassing. It's embarrassing to our children. Because they came up in a more integrated society. And they're like, what are these old heads fussing about? And then when we object to it, we get called a racist. But I'm thankful that we have the diversity that you see out there. Because we talk about empathy, and that's what it always takes. It's always somebody who's not directly affected, Samaritan, that can make the difference. Women's suffrage, all of this stuff we celebrate on Juneteenth, emancipation problem, all of that required empathy. So we appreciate that and we respect that. But this is not what we need to show. You know, we brag about being a host city. Look what they're saying. If they don't know anything else, they can count. And they know that this is a democracy, and we're supposed to do the wishes of the people. They can count. They see the numbers. Overwhelmingly, each time you come out here, overwhelmingly, when you do the emails that we get, it was 26 to 1, and the 1 was a special interest group. in favor of opposition. And we've been getting them steadily and keep sending them. We get them steadily since the 26th was on the 19th of May, and we still get them. So where is this we've been talking to the people? People here. The people were in the rooms when we did this before to draw the lines. But That doesn't matter because the best interest of Jacksonville does not matter. The county should be districts. You see people up here, they're moaning that the sales tax is not structured in a way to benefit Jacksonville when we produce most of the sales tax. We don't get it back. Then they go vote for the people that rigged the system against us. If you had districts, I'm really confident, because Jacksonville will have four of them, okay, that we would have the right sales tax. Because that's what we do with districts. We represent our neighborhood. There's a, I don't know who's been watching it, but on my Facebook, it's like 2,300, 2,500. And it's just a 30-second video of the pickleball games down at Kerr Street. And I just said it's the most beautiful park in the city. But people love it. talk to the people that are familiar and ask them where it would have been if it wasn't district representation. At one point, they were going to give the recreation center away. Didn't want to fix it up. And I was telling the gentleman yesterday how the tennis courts got there, how the trees got there. It was because of neighborhood representation. So they enjoy it. But when we have a process that helps with that, that doesn't outweigh special interest. And that's what this is about, special interest. And we're nonpartisan. So the special interests of the Republican Party shouldn't be driving this council. We're nonpartisan. Okay? So that's all I got.

Mayor, while there was a motion there, I'd like to talk just a little bit, if that's okay.

You know, I want to speak plainly because I think the stakes are too high for vague language. Our election system was created more than 30 years ago through a mediation agreement in the Willington case, not a court-ordered mandate. This means there's no judicial protection, no standing order that we can fall back on, no legal shield if we structure our challenge under the Supreme Court's new standards. And those standards have dramatically changed. The Court's Kalis decision rewrote the constitutional laws for districting systems in historical racial components. A system like ours was born from mediation guided by considerations that made sense in the 1990s, but not under the 2026 law, and is now directly exposed to challenges. Let me be very clear. If we rewrite our charter alone, Jacksonville becomes the sole entity to defend those challenges in federal court. We take on the entire burden. We take on the entire cost and we take on the entire risk. No outside protection, no state backup, no insulating framework. House Bill 1038 gives us something critically important, a structured state supported legal pathway. It provides stability, consistency, and legal grounding that we simply cannot achieved by our own. It places Jacksonville within a framework that's far better aligned with modern constitutional requirements and reduces the likelihood that this and its taxpayers will be dragged into costly litigation that could last for years. This is not speculative. It's not theoretical. This is a result of the Supreme Court redefinition of the legal landscape. Supporting House Bill 1038 is not about choosing sides. It's about choosing protection over vulnerability, certainty over risk, and compliance over confusion. To put it bluntly, HB 1038 provides legal insulation. A standalone charter does not change that. And the difference between the two could determine whether the city faces a federal lawsuit. I'm not willing to put Jacksonville in that position. Supporting HB 1038 is the strongest and safest path forward. And it's one that protects our residents that we serve.

was there a second on your motion not yet okay on who's on the motion or did you was there a second to motion i'm sorry second to the motion to table you did wait a minute i made a second did you catch the second

was made by Councilman Willingham, and it was seconded by Councilwoman Washington.

Okay, all right, thank you. You're welcome. I'd like to continue the discussion. Go ahead. Okay, I told you it was coming. Mediation, okay? Who was in mediation of the case that I sued? Who was in mediation?

It was mediated. Who mediated it?

See, that's what the liars do.

I'm not lying. I'm not lying. Let me finish.

Try to be a little respectful. No, he's not telling the truth. He's going to sit there and tell me. It was my case. You can read the language. There was no mediation. We sued. They changed the wards, two wards, after we sued. And we moved to dismiss because they changed the wards. The judge determines who's the prevailing party. The city moved to dismiss. to say we were the losing party. So it's two dismissal motions. Don't get hung up on the word dismiss. We don't have anything else to fight for. But we want our attorney fees. So in the lawsuit, you're going to see how they distorted the language so he can say stuff like that. There was no mediation. And I don't even want to put the attorney on the spot. There's no mediation. That's what happened. And the judge determined that they switch systems because of the lawsuit. Now, he can't read that. They don't intend to be right there. It's not even in the cards. So we were the prevailing party. Last time we were here, I gave y'all an example of that food truck case. We did the same thing in the food truck case. They know it, so they should understand the process. We changed the law so that the suit was moved. Did we pay attorney's fees? Yes, because they prevailed. That's how that happens. And they'll sit up here and do this. There was no mediation. And I bet you when we pull it out and you see it was no mediation, the position's not going to change. That's the straw man. That's a logical fallacy. When the argument is about drawing the lines, they change the argument. That's the straw man. They argue something we're not even arguing. Pay attention to what he said. If we just change the charter and that's it, Who said anything about changing the chart in my motion? It's not in there. I said redraw the lines. A tautology is a sentence that's always right. It's like all men are males, okay? That's a tautology. It's within the definition that it's right, right? Because men are going to be a subset of males. So it's always right. Let me give you another one. If we comply with Calais and change the lines, that is better. than going to an at-large system that has been determined already to be discriminatory. Why? Because it's a tautology. What I said was, if we comply with CalA and draw the lines, okay, nobody in here is going to tell you today that we can't draw the lines in compliance. That gets to the other lie that Phil Sheppard and White Gable told. When they said they had talked to us about the alternatives, they were put on the spot by other representatives. And it could have been Shelly Willingham, no relation. Did you try to get them to consider alternatives? You know what he said. Yes.

They don't care about the lies.

And what they're doing is supporting all of that. They co-signed all of the lies and the integrity violations. And they're just going to do it because of the special interest. So all we're talking about is drawing the lines. Our team... I told you I made that offer. Okay? They don't want to draw the lines. They don't want to comply with Calais. That's what Calais is. Don't let them say nothing to you about Calais if they're not talking about drawing the lines. Because that's all the case is. It's not at large system. So our case was not settled. I wish we could put some money on it. was not settled, wasn't mediated because he didn't know the mediator. Because I don't know him because I was there. From the start to the finish. So, but that's how they grab him. And so they'll be grabbing at the low voter turnout. When they tried their very best to create it. With voter suppression. There's North Carolina cases where they've been found liable for voter suppression. But it's a low voter turnout. And Councilmember Washington gave you the numbers. Look at how many Cindy got. And then look how many people didn't vote for her. Okay? It's bad all over. Well, I think Oslo County is where? Last in the state? Yes.

for voter turnout.

None of that matters when they have a chance to listen to special interest groups and take something from minorities. Okay.

Mr. Mayor, despite Councilman Willingham's obsession with the word prevailing, we have two court orders that say dismissed and a document that says it was established by a voluntary action of council. It was entered into voluntarily. The distinction of voluntarily is what causes a lot of the liability, and the charter may not be in the motion on the floor or in the motion... You know, but the reality is the charter is the legal problem. The way it was written and what it says is problematic because of the law changes this year. When it was done, as Councilman Willing, excuse me, Yanero said, It was responding to voting rights laws at the time, and it was done with the discussion, documented discussion, of race as the predominant reason. The black community was consulted. The black community was involved. Black neighborhoods were identified to be part of the two wards that were then labeled in our charter as minority wards. This is now not legal. Still a protected class, but in district drawing, the one thing you cannot use as a criteria. You can use a whole lot of crazy things for criteria. Good intentions are not enough. The fact that it was drawn based on race for the benefit of a particular race now makes it a legal liability challenge. And so the charter and the lines need to be addressed. HB 1038, if HB 1038 becomes law, it supersedes any action we take in the meantime. So we can draw all kinds of pretty maps. If HB 1038 goes through, it all gets chucked out, and we have to go with HB 1038's decision at that time anyway. If HB 1038 does not become law, then we have to choose a path that contains a lot more liability for the city, but is another path we can take to revisit and redraw and change the charter. It's a process. It will take time. but it is a legal option that we have. The shortest path to the legal resolution and the path that was recommended by, not in writing, because they don't ever put anything in writing and they will refuse to because they're a nonpartisan group, but the Harvard trained, you heard this from me before, the Harvard trained, nationally recognized election law expert at the School of Government said the least liability path for the city is for HB 1038 to pass. If it passes, things can be revisited. If it doesn't pass, we are forced to deal with it locally and accept all the liability ourselves. But 1038 is the safest path legally for the city to avoid holding all that liability in its own lap.

So, may I ask the question? Let's go down the line here and get somebody else's input.

Well, I just want to know then why, when it was moved, seconded, and voted upon last week to change the charter as well as elect a special group to do the redistricting, why was it voted down?

I don't believe we should do that ahead of 1038 being decided because we, first of all, it would all be thrown out. So it becomes a moot point. Whatever we do won't stick if 1038 overrides it. And if 1038 goes through, even if we don't love the arrangement, we are covered liability-wise. And then we can, in 18 months to two years, make adjustments or whatever we need to do in the future. But the liability for that entire process falls on the legislative staff and the, not staff, the legislators who filed the bill and passed it.

I could ask a question. I'll yield to Dr. Washington. So if your argument is true and in good faith with Representative Shelly Willingham, no relations to Council Member Willingham, wanted to know about the argument, if you give the city of Jacksonville the opportunity to redraw the lines, then why would Representative Shepherd and Gable continue to push this issue? They would drop it. That is, I'm basing what you're saying because you just said to us, even if we draw the lines, they can change it. And what I am saying is, and with ethical integrity, we redraw the lines. There will be no reason for them to override our decision. Again, you're... It's all about preemption. So based upon your argument, we come to the table and it's not going to take forever. We have a GI analyst that can crack those numbers quicker than what was presented in war games. But we have not been able to do that because that's not what the majority on this council want to do. We're coming in good faith to say, you know what? Here's the olive branch. Let's sit down and look at the numbers. Let's do what's right. Let's do what's fair. Let's do what's just. Let us make the decision about what happens in our house. and to say preemptively, no matter what we're doing, they're going to change it, that's stroke and fear for us not to change it.

No, ma'am, it's not striking fear. Our attorney has said the same thing. We can do certain things on a certain timeline. And let us do it. And the legislature can do whatever they want at any time. Let us redraw the lines.

Okay, one at a time, please. Mr. Willingham, you wanted to finish. Okay.

This notion of lease liability is a red herring again, because what did I say? Compliant with Kelly. If you comply with the Supreme Court, where's the lawsuit? Who's going to sue? Phil Sheppard? Who's suing? That's zero liability. That's the tautology of it. There's zero liability. Just look at the history. They say if they go to at-large, that's a safe liability situation.

What?

Didn't we just sue and win in 90? That's empirical data that you have. How you jump over that? Why wouldn't we do it again? You will find there is a pattern with behavior and losing lawsuits. We ain't gonna talk about it. But you will. You'll find. Okay? You'll find. So now the experts on Losing lawsuits? You notice how the hypothetical always works one way? What if we change it and then they change it? If we change it, we're in compliance. That's the goal. And then they change it at large. We'll deal with it when they do it, unless they know they're already going to do it. Then it ain't a hypothetical that way either. Compare something that's going to generate some liability, the at-large system or litigation, with something that is going to be compliant with the law. And again, in order to even make that jump that this is more risky, you would have to feel that we can't comply with Calais. Because that was the hypothetical that was given. If we comply with Calais, we good. I haven't heard anybody up here saying that we can't comply with Calais, that we can't draw it. I haven't heard the attorney say that. And all this stuff about school of government, about sick of the school of government, they're going to tell you something, but they won't put it in writing. You know what happens with that? We get the interpretation of the listener, not the authority. And they would rather rely on the, want you to rely on the interpretation of the listener as opposed to just read the case.

I think everybody's had an opportunity.

Can I talk?

Go ahead. All right. I know I haven't said anything yet, but I'd like to sit back and listen and hear everybody out. So from my point of view is I don't agree with the left side, and I don't agree with the right side. So I'm a moderate type of thinker, and I like to look for the middle. And I feel like that has been a real hard thing for me to do during this whole situation. When I got into this, I came in as the youngest person on here by a lot of years, and I wanted to make a difference for the area. I grew up here, I live here, my family's from here, and being a business, you know, I wanted to make that change. You know, I decided to run for council and not county commissioner because of the partisan. I didn't want to pick a side. I wanted to do what was best for the community. And I feel like I've done that. And this is probably one of the hardest decisions, you know, I've had to make coming up with this. I didn't ask for it. It was thrown at us. We got to deal with it. And so that's where I'm at right now. But I would like to vote. I feel like we've spent a lot of time on this. My decision, I didn't come up with it. I spent a lot of time thinking about it. Probably the most I've ever thought about the decision we made on this council. But I would like to make a decision so we can move forward. We've still got to get a budget finished. We still have other matters that we've got to get finished. So I think I would personally like to make a vote.

With that said, can I ask Mr. Willingham a question?

Yes, you can ask him a question.

With regards with the option of redrawing the lines, you're specifically talking about the district lines, correct?

Yes.

And that will be for Wards 1, Ward 2, Ward 3, and Ward 4?

Yes.

Okay.

And that would include Hugh representing Ward 1, Mr. Sosa representing, excuse me, Mrs. Smith representing Ward 2, Council Member Logan Sosa representing Ward 3, and me representing Ward 4.

That's the quickest, the easiest way to do it.

So the four of us that represents the wards, we come together.

Yeah. But the council would have to vote on it.

So that will be your representation, city of Jacksonville.

Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Lorna.

All right.

Lorna, this is just an up or down, yes or no. Is it true that changing the lines on the districts would still leave us with liability due to the charter?

Okay, so this is a very nuanced legal issue. And I will tell you, there is no yes or no answer to that question.

OK. Best case. Was there a follow up for that? Not so much a follow up, but my understanding of this is that the language in the charter itself is problematic. And so just redrawing the districts to comply with Calais does not get us completely out of the woods in dealing with some of that liability.

I think we face liability no matter what decision is made. And folks, remember, I'm here to make sure that the rules are enforced. And that includes rules that council has made for themselves. And that includes laws that the state has made for council to follow. And the mayor does have the authority to keep order in this meeting. So let's just make sure we're mindful of that.

Ask your question.

Madam Attorney, I have a question. Yes, ma'am. For the last past three decades, the city of Jacksonville has amended the district lines based upon the census data, correct?

To the best of my knowledge, we've changed district lines based on census data.

How often is the census conducted? That, 10 years. We conducted every 10 years. So my question, I'm not being disrespectful, Mrs. Welch. My question is this. The last time our census data was used was based off the 2020 census. With that being said, again, I'm just going to estimate Our population in the city of Jacksonville, roughly 72,000. So if we have four wars, roughly speaking, about 18,000 people in each ward. However, with this last census data, the United States government amended the guidelines that for population purposes, there was a plus or minus 5% different variation. So in other words, with your 18,000 in each ward, you can have roughly 5% will be about 900 individuals less or 900 individuals more. We cannot... physically changed that data because that data was collected in 2020. And the redistricting lines was based upon that data. Even council.

Are you asking a question or making a statement? Yes, I am, yes.

Mr. Sosa and myself was on the council when we adopted those lines. So what I'm saying is If the census occurs every 10 years based upon your population size, is there a clause that the United States government says at any point in time you can go back and change the lines even though we know that the population back in 2020 was 72,000. But if all of a sudden we've had an influx of 10,000 and we're now at 80, does the United States Census guidelines allow us to amend that information even though their information impacts us every 10 years?

So I think if I understand your question properly, you're asking if even without census data, could we consider other data in order to redistrict our lines? Is that right?

Well, our data is predicated upon the census. Sure, sure. And I have not heard any argument or seen any data that says that for the three times that we have drawn our lines, we have used additional data to change. So we're in 2026. The next census doesn't occur in 2030. We don't take that information until four and a half years, well, three and a half years from now. So our lines right now was based upon data that was collected in 2020. Yes, ma'am. So we can just tell the government. We don't want your data. We don't use your data. And regardless of what it is, we're just going to draw our own lines anyway, regardless of what the census data tells us to do.

So there are any number of ways that we can change our charter and that we can even change our districts. But what does the government say? So there's the laws that talk about changing those. Say you can change them for a number of different reasons at different times, and you wouldn't necessarily have to go according to the census data.

Offenses in civil law require burdens of proof.

If somebody's trying to show that your system is discriminatory, there are burdens that are attached with that. If we comply with Kalei, then the system is not discriminatory. Who cares about the charter? We can't win the lawsuit if we comply with Kalei. But that's moot to me because we should change the charter. Because the charter was for a different constitutional law. It was interpreted differently. So we should change the charter. But the charter is just evidence of your intent to discriminate. But if you change the board system to where it's compliant with Calais, then that burden of proof by tautology is not met. Yeah, you got some bad evidence out there, but What you've done is corrected the problem because the lawsuit would be about your system that you put in place. That's just evidence to show intent. But if you don't have an offense, then that really doesn't come into it. But we do it anyway. And we could do it so easily. We've been asking to change the charter. So that's a straw man that, oh, the charter's going to be left and we just do the lines. That's not even what we're proposing. We're doing both. The charter could be done in two hours with us. We already know what needs to be removed. That's straw man stuff again, red herring stuff. Argue about this when that's not germane. Because we've been saying change the charter, take the language that was one time compliant, and abide by the Supreme Court case. It's not hard. And why not do it as, you know, we talk compromise and, OK, I heard that. Why not do that? Why not try that? That would satisfy everybody. The wards wouldn't be drawn like they are now. Ward 1 would probably have Mill Avenue, Bayshore, Shoreline, Riverwalk Landing. You just make it compact. I'd say just square. Just imagine squares, four squares. It's not hard because of the tools that we have now. But not even to try that when the community is overwhelmingly asking for something like that, not even to try it, is gross indifference. Okay.

So there is a motion and a second. We've had our discussion. We're going to call a vote on this. All those in favor of Mr. Willingham's motion to redistrict?

Aye.

Raise your hand, aye. Aye. All opposed?

Oh, I'm not opposed. Opposed? I'm not.

All those in favor of the redistricting option that Mr. Willingham is laying out, please indicate by raising your hand if you're an aye. Okay. All right. That takes care of that then.

I don't know if it matters. I think we need to try to find a middle ground before we jump on one side or the other. I'm sorry, but that's just how I felt.

I appreciate it. I had a tough time with this. It didn't come up lightly.

motion to adjourn