MEETING OF THE
ANNEXATION COMMITTEE
OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM
December 8, 2008
Minutes
The Annexation Committee of the Board of Trustees of the Houston Community College
System held a meeting on Monday, December 8, 2008, at the System Administration
Building, 3100 Main, 2nd Floor Seminar Room A, Houston, Texas.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Neeta Sane, Committee Chair
Mills Worsham, Committee Member
Richard Schechter, Committee Member
Dr. Michael P. Williams
ADMINISTRATION
Renee Byas, General Counsel
Martha Barrera for Fena Garza, President, Southwest College
Zachary Hodges, President, Northwest College
Willie Williams, Associate Vice Chancellor, Human Resources
OTHERS PRESENT
Jarvis Hollingsworth, Counsel, Bracewell & Giuliani
Gene Locke, Counsel, Andrews Kurth
Rolando Rios, Attorney at Law
Other administrators, citizens, and representatives of the news media
CALL TO ORDER
Mrs. Sane called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m. and declared the Committee
convened to consider matters pertaining to the Houston Community College System as
listed on the duly posted Meeting Notice.
PRESENTATION ON AVAILABLE OPTIONS FOR ALIEF TERRITORY
Mr. Rolando Rios provided a presentation on Post Annexation Options for the Alief
area. The following options were under discussion:
Options
1. Place all of Alief in one district
2. Split Alief into two or more districts
3. Equalize population in each district – equal representation
Mr. Rios noted the following considerations:
1.
Elections to be conducted in November 2009 for three Trustees
Houston Community College System
Annexation Committee – December 8, 2008 - Page 2
2.
Redistricting after the 2010 census will not be in place until November 2011
election for three Trustees
3.
Wherever Alief is placed, it will be there for three years and it may be longer
before Alief voters get to vote.
4.
Alief voters right to vote and equal representation
Mr. Rios provided information depicting the population, deviations, race, and ethnic
breakdown for each district with map scenarios for each.
Mr. Schechter asked if it would be a violation of the constitution to place all of Alief in
District VI. Mr. Rios advised that there might be some exposure. Mr. Schechter asked
for clarification in that the legal advice is that if the all of Alief is placed in District VI, it
would violate Reynolds vs. Sims and possibly the voters rights act. Mr. Rios advised
that there would be a violation of the 14th Amendment unless there is justification by
some form of government policy and secondly, the Voter’s Right Act is not involved in
“one person, one vote” because the Department of Justice does not have jurisdiction
over the “one person, one vote”.
Mr. Schechter asked if this then means that leaving Alief in District VI is not an option
given the “one person, one vote” and the ten percent deviation. Mr. Rios advised that
the Justice Department will review “one person, one vote” only if it is delusionary
against minorities.
Mr. Rios noted adoption of the legal population plan would only affect the districts up for
election next year (Districts III, VI, and VIII). He apprised that each district would
receive an increase of approximately 30,000.
Mr. Worsham asked if redistricting in all areas would be required if there is a change in
District VII. Mr. Rios advised that the Board has the option of equalizing or not.
Mr. Schechter mentioned that the problem with leaving Alief in District VI is that the
district is up for election in 2009 and there would be a voter disparity in terms of
Reynolds vs. Sims. Mr. Locke advised that there would be the risk of a legal challenge
not on the basis of the Voter Rights Act but on the challenge of “one person, one vote”.
Mrs. Sane asked Mr. Locke to provide his recommendation to prevent any violation of
state laws. Mr. Locke apprised that the matter is a policy decision and noted counsel
could only inform of the consequences associated with each option because each
potential action has some negative consequences associated with it. He referenced Mr.
Rios’ previous note of the risk of leaving Alief in District VI; however, the same risk may
be present with District V and VII.
Mrs. Sane asked if there is less exposure if all the areas are redistricted now.
(Dr. Williams arrived at 3:25 p.m.)
Houston Community College System
Annexation Committee – December 8, 2008 - Page 3
Mr. Locke noted that there are consequences in undertaking a major redistricting in all
the districts now because the process could take at least a year or longer, which would
cause HCC to be front and center. He noted that most governmental bodies only want
to face redistricting every ten year because it is so tedious. He also apprised that HCC
must consider how to deal with Spring Branch and North Forest.
Dr. Williams mentioned that the actual redistricting would take place after the 2010
census and noted that previously, in the case of Missouri City, the area was attached to
District VIII.
Dr. Williams mentioned that it is up to the Board to make a rational decision; however, it
will not be perfect. Mr. Locke mentioned that if Alief is divided between Districts VI and
VII, there is still the possibility of a challenge. Mr. Locke advised that examples of risk
associated with all the options could be compiled.
Mr. Schechter presented questions that he felt needed to be answered before
considering any of the options:
Does the constitution or any stature require that citizens of Alief get an immediate right
to vote? Mr. Rios advised that once the citizens are given the right to vote, they have a
right to equal representation. Mr. Schechter apprised that the citizens have a right to be
place in a district with a representative, which is different from having a right to vote at
the next election. Mr. Locke and Mr. Rios advised that they do not have to vote at the
next election. Mr. Rios advised that there is no requirement that the citizens be given
the right to vote in 2009.
Is there a constitution or federal/state statute requiring equal numbers for the purpose of
representation? Mr. Rios apprised that the courts assume that the census is static for
ten years and noted that equal representation would be based on the 2000 census. Mr.
Locke apprised that if the population changes, as a result of unequal representations,
redistricting is not required if you are within the ten-year limit, but would have to
redistrict after the ten-year period.
Mrs. Sane asked if HCC is legally obligated to provide equal representation for Alief
residents. Mr. Rios advised that representation is presently occurring.
Mr. Schechter asked Mr. Rios if he could provide a case law that says that it is
unconstitutional to have such disparity representation.
Mr. Rios stated that the constitution state that there must be equal representation in
each district.
Dr. Williams asked if there is any type of prohibition. Mr. Rios advised that the 14th
Amendment states that there must be equal representation in each elected
representative district.
Houston Community College System
Annexation Committee – December 8, 2008 - Page 4
Mr. Worsham reiterated that according to Mr. Rios the citizens do not have to vote in
2009. Mr. Rios advised that they do not have to vote but they must have representation
equally. He noted that representation does not only occur when they vote but is an
everyday occurrence.
Mr. Locke apprised that this is a policy decision and noted that he does not think that it
is required to redistrict each time there is an annexation, otherwise you would not be
able to function. He noted that it is a situation where it will be at least two years before
the citizens could be put in equally drawn districts, which would probably be in 2011
after the 2010 census.
Dr. Williams asked why you would put the area in a district that is up for election when
there are other options. Mr. Locke noted that that is why it is a policy issue.
Dr. Williams asked counsel to provide an opinion. Mr. Rios advised that the Board
should equalize the population. He noted that the only people affected would be those
up for re-election in 2009.
Mr. Schechter mentioned that he has a problem with redistricting and noted that it could
be a lengthy and costly process especially when redistricting has to be completed after
the 2010 census. He noted that this could mean conducting three redistricting in three
years given the possibility of annexing in other areas. Mr. Schechter apprised that the
students are more important and stated that he would like to see a law case where it is
unconstitutional to have a disparity between elections.
Dr. Williams associated with Mr. Schechter and noted that if there is a challenge on the
issue, it must be noted that the decision was based on what was best for the college.
Mr. Worsham asked if it would suffice to remain status quo until after redistricting, and if
not, why. Mr. Rios advised that there is an exposure because there is not equal
representation.
Mrs. Sane requested that counsel provide legal advice. Mr. Locke noted that his opinion
is that it is a policy and not a legal issue whether to redistrict the entire district or
reassign to six or seven. He apprised that legal opinion is to leave in District VI or place
in District VII.
Mr. Schechter asked counsel if they are aware of any case that required equal
representation between election.
Mr. Locke, Mr. Hollingsworth, Mrs. Byas, and Mr. Rios advised that they were not aware
of any such case.
Dr. Williams apprised that he wants to make certain that if there is litigation, we are in a
position that is defensive and that it is clear that the decision was not driven by anything
other than sound public policy.
Houston Community College System
Annexation Committee – December 8, 2008 - Page 5
Mrs. Sane apprised that a fair solution must be identified that will not require litigation
and asked how do we receive clearance from the Department of Justice as it relates to
the ten percent rule. Mr. Locke advised DOJ would review the impact of the action on
voting minority protected under the act.
Mr. Schechter mentioned that his understanding of the ten percent rule applies when
you are voting and not the representational period between votes. He noted that we
only run the ten percent rule if there is redistricting. Mr. Locke mentioned that there is a
possibility of a challenge of denying the right to vote if place in District VII. He noted
that the ten percent rule applies across the Board in all districts and noted there is no
immediate guide as to how to divide Districts VI and VII.
Mr. Locke mentioned that the issue is what is best for HCC and noted that he does not
have a problem with any of the options provided. He noted that there is no easy
answer, but it is a policy decision.
Dr. Williams mentioned that he is neither in favor of redrawing the lines nor in favor of
placing it in District VI since it is up for election in 2009.
Mrs. Sane mentioned that Alief residents would be required to pay taxes in 2010;
therefore, there must be an explanation to the citizens. Dr. Williams noted that the
citizens must know that they have equal representation and that the lines will be
redrawn after the 2010 census.
The committee concluded that the item be placed on the Board retreat agenda and next
Annexation Committee meeting.
Mr. Locke noted that the decision of whether to change the representation from District
VI should be made prior to January no later than February 2009.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m.
Recorded by:
Sharon R. Wright, Executive Administrative Assistant, Board Services
Transcribed and submitted by:
Sharon Wright, Executive Administrative Assistant, Board Services
Minutes Approved: