Reflecting on this concern, it is important to recognize what is actually the most important part of the scheduling. Is not the actual completion of the final district maps ultimately the goal?
Honest consideration of the work this year's IRC is doing must go beyond comparing the start times for certain phases of the work.
Did everything go smoothly with the IRC in 2001 after the mapping consultant started its work? (hint: NO!)
Based on the public record, we know delays occurred because the initial set of maps dead ended when the Bush Administration Department of Justice refused to issue preclearance.
Based on testimony given by former AIRC Commissioner Andi Minkoff last week, it is very clear that the mapping contractor (NDC) had time management problems then. And according to a Republican and a Democratic member of Yuma County's 2011 Redistricting Advisory Commission, NDC (Yuma County's current year contractor) is NOW having dramatic time management problems. NDCs proposal for the AIRC contract, according to all of the commissioners, was sloppy, contained numerous typographical errors and lacked sufficient detail to engender confidence by any of them. This, despite what Commissioners Freeman and Stertz said about their votes.
Both yesterday and the day before, AIRC Chair Mathis said her preference would have been to have proposals from two competent, qualified Republican firms and two from Democratic firms. As it happened, only one Republican firm with adequate experience submitted a proposal.
Years (decades) ago, I saw a sign in a workplace that read, "if you do not have the time to do a job right, when will you have the time to do it over?" In 2001, NDC was rewarded with a higher aggregate total of fees earned from its engagement with the AIRC because it did sloppy work the first time.
The 2011 AIRC is wise from having five strong minded commissioners who, I think, want to do the job right the first time, regardless of
Either or both bodies of the legislature may act within this period to make recommendations to the independent redistricting commission by memorial or by minority report, which recommendations shall be considered by the independent redistricting commission. (Arizona Constitution, Art. IV, Part 2 Section 1, Paragraph 16)what the body represented by John Mills recommends.
Many people expressed their concerns yesterday over the mapping consultant decision. Based on the information available to them at the time, those concerns are reasonable. Because Rick Stertz and Scott Freeman have gotten beyond their concerns with Strategic Telemetry, I am confident that when Ken Strasma begins his work here, those concerns (of the public) will be reasonably addressed. Certainly, Freeman and Stertz will continue to be very watchful regarding Strasma's firm. It still boils down to "trust, but verify."
