DMAC Meeting #8
Critics say a data inconsistency proves the committee was incompetent. That one mistake should discredit the entire process. The record from October 22 shows the opposite. Staff caught the inconsistency themselves, reported it publicly, and set the record straight. That is not incompetence. That is accountability.
What Was at Stake
The committee had just held its evening listening session on October 16. Thirteen residents had spoken. Some supported districts. Some opposed them. Now the committee was back for its regular Wednesday meeting to continue the detailed work of drawing maps.
Two issues needed attention. First, staff needed to clarify how the population variance methodology worked. References to “five percent” in prior meetings had created confusion about whether the allowable range between the largest and smallest districts was five percent total or five percent above and below the mean. Second, data displayed for a publicly submitted map at the October 15 meeting had been incorrect, and the record needed to reflect that.
Under at-large voting, Bend’s roughly 50% population share means Bend voters pick all five commissioners. The committee was doing the hard work of drawing districts so every part of the county could elect its own representative. Getting the data right was essential to that work.
Who Spoke
John Blackfort from Bend delivered the only public comment. He referenced the 4-3 committee vote to use voter registration as the primary dataset. He asked that the minutes reflect individual votes on non-unanimous motions — so the public could see who voted which way.
That request was itself a sign of a healthy process. A member of the public was asking for more transparency. The committee heard him.
Carol Loesche was absent. The remaining six voting members were present.
What Happened
Staff addressed two items on the record. Both mattered. And the way staff handled them tells you something important about this process.
The variance methodology. Jen Patterson clarified how the committee’s population variance worked. Staff had calculated a mean for each of the two data sets — 2020 Census population and August 2025 voter registration. Then they applied a five percent range above and below each mean. The effect could be a span of up to ten percent between the smallest and largest districts.
Patterson stated this framing had been conveyed at the August 27 orientation. She was restating it now to avoid confusion from varied references to “five percent” in prior discussions. A committee member asked whether this approach differed from the Board’s guidelines. Patterson acknowledged any discrepancy was inadvertent. She said staff had caught the issue after the October 16 listening session and brought it back as soon as they recognized it. The intent was transparency.
This is what critics call incompetence. Staff noticed that their earlier language could be misread. They flagged the inconsistency themselves. They reported it publicly at the next meeting. They clarified the methodology on the record. No one hid anything. No one waited to be caught.
The PS3 data inconsistency. Staff also addressed the data displayed for Greg Bryant’s publicly submitted map, designated PS3. The data shown at the October 15 meeting had been incorrect, though the map itself was accurate. Staff confirmed the practicality of iterating during the meeting and displayed the accurate data on-screen for the record.
Then the committee got to work.
Precinct-level map adjustments. Members reviewed specific changes to Map B. They discussed moving Precincts 5 and 47 to West Bend and shifting Precinct 2 to South County to balance populations. Staff suggested labeling any favored variation as Map C. The committee worked through these changes on-screen, keeping an eye on variance parameters and communities of interest.
Growth data. The committee reviewed a map of new dwelling permits issued between January 1, 2022 and October 20, 2025. Staff agreed to produce a tabular dataset listing permit counts and dwelling units for all 50 precincts. Members wanted to weigh near-term growth alongside voter registration when comparing districts. Melanie Kebler moved to request the dwelling permit data by precinct. The motion carried 5-1, with Bernie Brader voting against. No other county in Oregon has used voter registration data to establish commission districts — the committee was being thorough about supplementing it with growth data.
The committee also discussed asking the Board of County Commissioners for guidance on a key question: when keeping existing precinct lines intact conflicts with staying within the population range, which takes priority? There was informal agreement to seek that clarification.
What This Means
Data issues happen in every public process. What matters is how they are handled. Staff caught the variance inconsistency themselves and brought it back publicly. They displayed the accurate PS3 data on the record. No one covered anything up. No one hoped it would go unnoticed.
This is what a transparent process looks like. You catch mistakes. You report them. You fix them in public. Then you get back to work.
The committee began the precinct-by-precinct adjustments that would eventually produce Map C. They requested growth data so their decisions would be grounded in current facts, not just five-year-old census numbers. They asked the Board for guidance when the rules created tension.
Under at-large voting, Bend picks all five commissioners. Under districts, every community gets its own voice. The committee was doing the careful, tedious, accountable work of making that happen.