Six groups presented the council with seven different plans for redistricting, one of which was made by the Berkeley Student District Campaign in an attempt to create a student supermajority district. UC Berkeley junior and current redistricting director Noah Efron, senior Michael Manset and junior and ASUC External Affairs Vice President-elect Safeena Mecklai all presented for the BSDC.

Representatives of the BSDC said in the meeting that because the student community is currently divided into four districts, it is difficult for students to have their voices heard on the council. A student supermajority district would allow students to be represented on City Council.

“Twenty-five percent of Berkeley residents are students and they are not represented,”  Manset said during his presentation. “By creating a student district, students will have an institutionalized seat on the council to represent them. Our plan has District 7 remain the student district but increase in size so that 86 percent of students live in the district.”

Mecklai said that if having a student council member is not possible, the council member elected should understand student issues and be in tune with issues in student life.

“If the student community is condensed to one district, students will have more of a voice on the council,” Efron said. “The student community should be seen as a community of interest because while crime has decreased in other districts, in the student community crime has remained the same.

UC Berkeley alumnus Alfred Twu also submitted a redistricting plan and said that a student district should be made so that students could have a voice on the council.  However, Sherry Smith, president of the League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany and Emeryville, said that other communities and neighborhoods should also be considered when redistricting rather than just the student community.

“I can see why students would want a student district because then they would have an impact on the council and the council member elected by them would be responsive to their needs,” Smith said. “However, there are other communities of interest, such as the West Berkeley neighborhood, that should be considered. So what the council must do is weigh all the submitted plans out and possibly merge some together to achieve what is best for the city of Berkeley.”

Berkeley City Council will meet again on May 7 to vote on a redistricting plan and will begin to modify and change the plan once it is chosen.

Contact Seif Abdelghaffar at sabdelghaffar@dailycal.org.

The post Berkeley City Council looks at redistricting plans appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The Sunshine Ordinance — or city ballot Measure U — seeks to grant citizens access to the same information and records available to city officials as well as provide a sufficient opportunity to comment on issues at open meetings before decisions are finalized.

Though the city’s earlier Open Government Ordinance was adopted in 2011 to meet similar goals of increased public record and meeting access, the new ordinance would replace the current ordinance and create a new oversight committee that could enact harsher punishments — including a lawsuit as a last resort — for officials who do not comply with the new provisions.

“You waste your time lodging a complaint because nothing happens,” said Sunshine Ordinance Commission chair Dean Metzger. “The Sunshine Ordinance has more teeth in it and will get more results.”

The current ordinance cannot enforce because it only creates an advisory commission, he said.

If passed by voters, the ordinance will mandate that legislative decisions be made only in public meetings. Residents would also be allowed to place issues on the City Council meeting agenda, and any person attending the meeting will be given additional time to speak on agenda items.

Additionally, the measure would stipulate that closed council sessions must feature a public session to air public comments about the issues, as enforced by an advisory commission on open government issues that will be appointed by the City Council.

“It’s just really a bizarre, over-the-top measure that’s put together by a lot of people who are paranoid about what’s happening in Berkeley,” said Mayor Tom Bates.

Bates equated the new ordinance with “sunburn,” saying it would be detrimental to the city by diverting money and city labor away from an already overburdened legislative system. The measure is estimated to cost the city up to $1 million to $2 million a year, he said.

“I am all for hearing residents speak, but when you have 100 people show up and you are trying to make a decision, you want to hear from people, and you want them to express themselves, but you have to make a decision in a timely manner,” he said.

Berkeley City Auditor Ann-Marie Hogan said she understands why citizens feel like their voices are not being heard but agreed with Bates by saying that passing this measure would strain the city’s finances.

“I am worried about the way it is going to slow down decision making and create more work for the staff and city,” she said.

Supporters of Measure U say the current ordinance is not enforced and does not hold city officials accountable for “violating citizens’ rights,” a statement released by the Yes on Measure U campaign reads.

“The fact that it may take two months for the commissions to make recommendations to the council is not a sunshine issue — that is the commission’s problem,” said former mayor and Measure U proponent Shirley Dean.

Dean added that the estimated cost of the measure was based on a 2010 plan that has since inflated and does not reflect how much it will actually cost Berkeley.

But if the measure passes, the oversight commission would be mandated to run independently of the council. The hypothetical commission would oversee all levels of lawmaking, from the city committees to the mayor’s office, Dean said.

“There are continuing problems of secrecy, especially at the mayor level of city government — even the City Council members do not get information from the mayor,” said Councilmember Kriss Worthington.

Though voters will ultimately decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs, Bates said he believes voters will agree with him on the measure.

“People are not going to go for this,” he said. “It’s not going to pass — people see through them.”

Contact Aliyah Mohammed at amohammed@dailycal.org.

The post Ballot measure to increase government transparency may incur costs appeared first on The Daily Californian.