BEAG Meeting Summary 072421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

z 3. Review of Any Written Comments Received It was noted that County staff had previously shared with Group members one email trail that was sent to the Board of Commissioners regarding the SurveyMonkey public input effort initiated by the BEAG. It was also noted that County staff had previously shared one individual email that was sent to the Board of Commissioners regarding the lack of opportunity on one of the SurveyMonkey questions to address the current election method for seats on the Board of Commissioners. There was no additional discussion. 4. Review and Discussion of SurveyMonkey Results Orange County Community Relations Director Todd McGee presented a Powerpoint presentation on the Zoom screen detailing the responses to the public input SurveyMonkey published by the BEAG. Mr. McGee shared that 413 responses were received during the two week response window, and that he felt that was a pretty good response level for the survey. Mr. McGee detailed various demographics of the respondents as well as the cumulative percentage results for each of the SurveyMonkey questions. Group Co-Chair Mulkey indicated that that was definitely more public input than had been received during the 1993 discussions on the elections for Commissioners seats and likely more than was received when the current election system was implemented. Group Co- Chair Lisa Hazirjian stated that responses and demographics were great, and that the Group should include suggestions to the Board of Commissioners regarding soliciting additional public input and participation and use of community centers and other ways to involve the public. Group Member Rex Williams expressed concern that the survey did not have sufficient time and had not reached those that did not vote and were not involved in the community. 5. Review of Preliminary Perspectives Submitted by Individual Group Members and Development of Draft Scenarios for Group Consideration (Potential Three Minute Limit Per Speaker) Group discussion moved forward to the preliminary perspective responses and Group Members thoughts on potential scenarios for consideration and recommendations. Group Member Arab shared her thoughts that the true election districts were the only election method that addressed the criteria of proportionality, equity, uniformity, simplicity/clarity, maximizing voter engagement, and better representation. The current two district blended election system allowed the Chapel Hill area to disenfranchise the voting interests of the other parts of the County in a countywide vote. The imbalance had been recognized by the Group and noted in the SurveyMonkey responses. The desire for true election districts appeared to be strong based on responses in questions 5 and 7 on the SurveyMonkey. Responses to questions 8 and 9 indicated the need for true election districts. Eliminating at-large seats and the mix of urban and rural areas could