1 BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 2 450 N STREET 3 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT 8 JULY 27, 2011 9 ITEM P OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 10 ITEM P1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 11 ITEM 2 REDISTRICING REPORT 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Reported by: Juli Price Jackson 23 No. CSR 5214 24 25 26 27 28 1 1 P R E S E N T 2 3 For the Board Jerome E. Horton of Equalization: Chairman 4 5 Michelle Steel Vice-Chairwoman 6 7 Betty T. Yee Member 8 9 George Runner Member 10 11 Marcy Jo Mandel Appearing for John 12 Chiang, State Controller (per 13 Government Code Section 7.9) 14 15 Diane G. Olson Chief, Board 16 Proceedings Division 17 18 For the Department: Kristine Cazadd Interim Executive 19 Director 20 Randy Ferris Legal Department 21 22 Jeff McGuire Deputy Director 23 Sales and Use Tax Department 24 25 ---oOo--- 26 27 28 2 1 450 N STREET 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 JULY 27, 2011 4 ---oOo--- 5 MS. OLSON: Our next item is P1.2, 6 Redistricting Report. 7 MS. CAZADD: Members, as you are aware, the 8 staff, which is Randy Ferris, Jeff McGuire and myself, 9 testified before the Redistricting Commission on 10 July 6th. We sent you a summary of the testimony that 11 we provided. 12 We emphasized primarily the duties and 13 responsibilities of the Board Members relevant to the 14 District offices that are nested within the Equalization 15 Districts. 16 And, a couple of days ago, we provided to you a 17 sample implementation plan. When redistricting occurs, 18 there is a significant amount of work that staff needs 19 to undertake in order to change account numbers, contact 20 taxpayers, et cetera. 21 So, on that plan, I believe it's something we did 22 in 2002, it indicates the number of days and types of 23 tasks that staff has to put in place in order to 24 accomplish redistricting when the lines are redrawn. 25 So, that's all we really have to report. Happy 26 to answer any questions -- 27 MR. RUNNER: I have a question. 28 MS. CAZADD: -- you might have. 3 1 MR. HORTON: Mr. Runner? 2 MR. RUNNER: On the implementation plan, and, 3 again, the -- in the last time the implementation plan 4 was done, there was redistricting. 5 And then all the Board Members were up for 6 election that next year. And, so, therefore, everybody 7 ran in new districts. This is very different in the 8 sense that now redistributing will take place and for 9 Board members, there's not another election until 2014. 10 So, my observation would be -- I guess we may 11 need Legal to help us through this -- my observation 12 would be that, indeed, the District responsibilities 13 don't change until the new elections take place in those 14 new Districts. Because, in essence, we were all elected 15 in the current seats by the current people. 16 And to now, all of a sudden, shift around roles 17 and Districts would basically mean we would be 18 representing people who did not elect us. 19 So, I guess -- I guess, the issue for me is the 20 differentiation between the last census and when 21 redistricting took place because there was an election 22 right away that needed the reorganization, whereas, this 23 one is now three years away. 24 Just some comments and observations. 25 MR. FERRIS: Yeah, I think that's a reasonable 26 interpretation. 27 There is a Government Code statute that speaks 28 to whether or not if the lines are redrawn during the 4 1 term of a sitting Equalization District Member, that 2 even if they're drawn out of -- 3 MR. RUNNER: Right. 4 MR. FERRIS: -- the next District, that they 5 don't lose their seat. 6 MR. RUNNER: Right. 7 MR. FERRIS: So, that -- what you're saying 8 seems like the reasonable extension of that principle. 9 MR. RUNNER: I guess my -- so, I guess my point 10 would be -- I'm not sure the implementation schedule is 11 the same as what we saw in 2002. 12 Is that reasonable? 13 MR. FERRIS: I think so. I would assume that 14 there would be some -- I'm not from the Sales and Use 15 Tax Department -- 16 MR. RUNNER: Right. 17 MR. FERRIS: -- this is -- affects them. 18 But I would assume as it comes up to the time 19 when the new election will occur, they would probably 20 want to start taking some actions to be ready for it. 21 MR. RUNNER: Let me -- I mean, again, we -- 22 we -- we'll see what these lines actually look like and 23 here coming up soon. 24 But let me give you an example, I think. And 25 that is, as at least the direction was given to the line 26 drawers over the weekend, I'll use an example. 27 In that discussion, Ventura County was moved 28 from what would be the Central District, I guess, to the 5 1 LA District now, which would -- which would assume then 2 meaning that again then the -- the role of those 3 records, in terms of both office and who -- and Member 4 who then has responsibility for overseeing that office, 5 would then take place, I would assume then, after -- 6 again after the next election cycle. 7 And that's when -- and then -- and, so, 8 transition would take place at that point. 9 MS. CAZADD: Well, that would be consistent 10 with the law. 11 I think that's what we're saying. 12 MR. RUNNER: Okay. 13 MS. CAZADD: Consistent with the law, our 14 implementation plan, we would what plan for that prior 15 to. 16 MR. RUNNER: At that time? 17 MS. CAZADD: That's correct. 18 MR. RUNNER: Okay. That's just what I wanted 19 to clarify at that point. 20 Okay, that was my question. 21 MR. HORTON: Okay. I agree with the 22 interpretation of the law and the application as 23 Mr. Runner has depicted it. 24 I feel somewhat compelled to sort add a caveat 25 to that, if you will, that all of us have a 26 responsibility to all of the constituents within the 27 State of California. It's the uniqueness of our elected 28 position in serving on the Board. 6 1 And it is a sort of a separation of duties and 2 responsibilities that we sort of are -- seek to be 3 respectful of the Members in their respective district 4 where they got elected for the reasons articulated by 5 Mr. Runner and that those are constiuencies that 6 actually represented them. 7 The uniqueness is is that the business -- 8 whereas the business may be located in Ventura, actually 9 reside in another District, and, so -- but to the extent 10 that we can, we want to -- we want to be able to assure 11 every taxpayer that they have representation on this 12 body, both individually, as well as collectively. 13 Okay. So, to some extent, I think I 14 ultimately -- I ultimately said the same thing 15 Mr. Runner said. 16 Is there further discussion, Members? 17 Let me thank -- let me also sort of qualify 18 that the Commission asked for this report. 19 MR. RUNNER: Uh-huh. 20 MR. HORTON: It was not pursuant upon any 21 request of the Members. 22 And the staff did a yeoman's job because the 23 the uniqueness of the Board of Equalization, in that we 24 are a hybrid sort of elected officials, we serve in an 25 elected capacity as well as an administrative capacity, 26 and are often referred to as judge, jury and executer 27 (verbatim). 28 So, they did a yeoman's job of just defining 7 1 the difference and the impact that it would have on the 2 State of California and how the businesses overlay and 3 they are the representatives in which most of the 4 service centers that we have throughout the State of 5 California seek to provide that service to -- very, very 6 unique to what happens in the legislature, as it -- as 7 it is germane to drawing these lines and trying to 8 determine communities of interest. 9 And, in fact, I believe it was the Board of 10 Equalization's presentation that got the Commission or 11 helped the Commission further understand that -- that 12 the business community was a unique community of 13 interest and that in all of these Districts there are 14 business communities, there are ethnic communities of 15 interest that have evolved and that the Board has sought 16 to evolve with those communities in providing the 17 service to those particular communities -- all of the 18 way down to trying to insure that we have -- that our -- 19 our information is translated in various languages, 20 whenever possible, that our staff is culturally aware of 21 the constituencies that exist within a particular 22 jurisdiction. 23 And that was extremely important to the 24 ultimate decisionmaking process of whether or not to 25 combine communities of interest in one county versus 26 another, where there may be conflicting interests as it 27 relates to the Board of Equalization, as it relates to 28 local tax allocation. 8 1 In fact, the original lines had -- not the 2 original, but one set of visualizations had three 3 Members representing the City of Los Angeles -- and 4 still does, as a matter of fact. 5 But in and of itself, we were at least able to 6 articulate where the City of Los Angeles was in conflict 7 with another city over a local tax allocation matter, 8 the City of LA may very well have more representation on 9 the Board than the other city. 10 So, thank you very much -- long way of saying, 11 thank you for your hard work and your diligence in doing 12 so. 13 Okay, no other discussion, Members? 14 Thank you. 15 ---o0o--- 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE. 2 3 State of California ) 4 ) ss 5 County of Sacramento ) 6 7 I, JULI PRICE JACKSON, Hearing Reporter for the 8 California State Board of Equalization certify that on 9 JULY 27, 2011 I recorded verbatim, in shorthand, to the 10 best of my ability, the proceedings in the 11 above-entitled hearing; that I transcribed the shorthand 12 writing into typewriting; and that the preceding pages 1 13 through 9 constitute a complete and accurate 14 transcription of the shorthand writing. 15 16 Dated: AUGUST 18, 2011 17 18 19 ____________________________ 20 JULI PRICE JACKSON 21 Hearing Reporter 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10