Mayor Mitchell Steers the City Council Toward New District Map

The fifth and (supposedly) final “public hearing” on the districting process before the City Council on Monday, April 7, got underway a bit late—scheduled as “time certain” for 6:45pm, Fire Chief Jason Boaz’s annual department update ran into their time.

That wasn’t the only thing that didn’t happen on schedule on Monday night. After having reached consensus at the fourth public hearing on March 17 that what has been termed Map A best represented the interests of the city in crafting five separate districts, the expectation was that the council would make a final perfunctory review, then move to adopt and finalize the map.

It would place them comfortably within the “safe harbor” in terms of the legal deadline to create a district-based, rather than at-large, method for electing council members. That would bring the City of Healdsburg into compliance with the California Voting Rights Act and avoid a lawsuit.

“The law requires five hearings and here we are for public hearing number five, so we’re approaching the finish line,” said City Manager (and council cheerleader) Jeff Kay.

Kay reminded the council that only after the final map was approved could they discuss the more “political” aspects of the districting process: The number order of the districts, and thus the sequencing of the district elections. Even-numbered districts, like 2 and 4, would have a seat up for election in 2028; odd districts, like 1, 3 and 5, would be voted on in 2026.

“We really do want to provide a firewall between those two conversations,” Kay said. “As you well know and as you’ve been adhering to throughout this process, you don’t want to think about where people live and incumbency as you select the map.”

Instead, following consultant Paul Mitchell’s brief presentation and a handful of public comments, Mayor Evelyn Mitchell quickly moved to the center of the board, in chess terms, and took command of the game.

Mayor’s Gambit

It turned out on March 18, the day after the council had elevated Map A as their preferred solution, someone submitted a new map for the council to consider that was an almost exact duplicate of the “Map D” that Chris Herrod said he rescued from public submissions in February. (The city has said there is no way to identify who submits a given map, unless that person chooses to sign in or personalize the map’s name.)

Indeed Map D was a close contender for the council’s choice in their previous public hearing, but outvoted at the time. Yet here it was again, on equal footing with the chosen Map A. It was as if the selection didn’t matter.

“I’m gonna take the prerogative of being mayor and jumping in and speaking first tonight,” Mitchell said following the public comment period. The mayor then asked for a do-over, encouraging two of her council members to agree with her, change their votes and elevate Map D.

“I’m hoping I can convince two council members to agree to look back at Map D,” she said, leading her argument by reiterating her specific objections to a section of Map A that connects the March Avenue population with those living along Grove Street, across the busy Healdsburg Avenue/Dry Creek Road intersection.

‘Bulb-Out’

The mayor referred to this as the “bulb-out” (a term usually used in traffic control) that extended District 2 east from Healdsburg Avenue up to University Street. The neighborhood does have a significant Hispanic population (in the term used by the map tool), however, and adding its population to the westside district creates a district with a 62% Hispanic population, 36% of voting age.

On its own, that section of the map has 57.4% Hispanic, 36.8% of voting age.  

Map D, on the other hand, has a 56% Hispanic population in the western district, slightly less than 30% of voting age. It would still be the most “Latino” district in Healdsburg, if 6% smaller.

Mitchell adamantly argued against including that area along March Street and a couple of blocks on either side in the large western district, saying it wasn’t part of the same neighborhood.

“That community is not part of the Grove Street area. Just simply is not,” she said. “And it continues to bother me. I think it would not be the right representation for that community which, oh by the way, I live in.”

As Kay pointed out, and Paul Mitchell underscored, discussion of where one lived in the mapping process was supposed to be “firewalled” out, yet the mayor made it a point to claim her residence in the contested district, saying she ran through the neighborhood every day, sees all her neighbors along March Avenue, and “would never go all the way across the railroad tracks to Grove Street.”

Mitchell later told The Tribune that she currently lives in Fitch Mountain Villas, which sits on the other side of University Street, not in the March Avenue community. “I referenced this as my neighborhood simply to help make the point I know the area,” she said.

Rules of Order

No opportunity for public comment followed the council’s own discussion, but the members strove to reach a collegial solution, despite evident misgivings from Ariel Kelley and David Hagele. Kelley said she would vote for the revote so the council could “move together in harmony,” and Hagele said that while he preferred Map A, he would “not vote no on D.” 

When it came time to make a motion to elevate Map D over Map A, Mitchell asked City Attorney Samantha Zutler how such a motion could be made. Zutler said, “My recommendation would be that the mayor call for a motion and the motion be approved,” then she outlined the terms of the expected motion.

Mitchell responded, “So can I say, ‘So moved’? What you just said?” And with Zutler’s assent, the motion was accepted, Edwards seconded, and the unanimous vote followed.

Although online research strongly suggests it violates the chair’s role in most manuals of parliamentary procedure, including Robert’s and Rosenberg’s “rules of order,” the city attorney told The Tribune that it’s not illegal for a mayor to make a motion.

The next step then is for the council to add another public hearing to the next meeting, then vote to approve Map D as their vision for a district-based future—a challenge they were faced with Monday night, but continued until date certain, April 21.