DMAC Meeting #9
Critics say the map was predetermined. That the committee was just going through the motions and the outcome was decided before the work began. The record from October 29 makes that claim impossible to sustain. The committee voted 4-3 to keep a map alive that three members wanted to eliminate. If the fix were in, that vote would never have happened.
What Was at Stake
The committee had been meeting since August. Three maps were still on the table: Map A, Map B, and Map C. The Board of County Commissioners had just weighed in on a key question about population variance. Now the committee needed to narrow its options and focus on the maps most likely to produce a fair result.
Opponents of districts had been arguing from the beginning that the outcome was rigged. That the committee would arrive at a predetermined map no matter what the public said. This meeting put that claim to the test. If the map were truly predetermined, the committee would have moved quickly to one option without real debate. That is not what happened.
Under at-large voting, Bend’s roughly 50% population share means Bend voters pick all five commissioners. The committee was trying to draw districts so Sisters, Redmond, La Pine, and south county could each elect their own representative. Getting from three maps to one required open debate and honest votes.
Who Spoke
Greg Bryant from Bend delivered the only public comment. He asked whether the committee could forward more than one map to the Board. Chair Bryant responded that the Board had directed the committee to submit a single map with five districts.
It was a fair question. The answer was clear. One map. Five districts.
All seven voting members were present, plus Chair Bryant. The full committee was in the room.
What Happened
The meeting covered three major pieces of business: updated guidelines from the Board, the elimination of Map A, and a failed motion that revealed real disagreement.
The Board expanded the variance. Jen Patterson reported that the Board of County Commissioners had voted 2-1 to allow up to a ten percent range between the largest and smallest districts, rather than requiring split precincts to stay within a tighter band. The updated guidelines, reflected on October 27, expressed a preference — not a mandate. A smaller range should still be pursued when achievable without splitting precincts. The Board also preferred that precincts with higher growth trends be placed at the lower end of the permitted range. That way, districts in fast-growing areas would have room to absorb new residents before the next redistricting.
Building permit data. Lee Klemp displayed building permit data from January 1, 2022 through October 20, 2025. Some Redmond multifamily records were still pending. Updated voter registration data as of November 1 would also be pulled for future maps. Precinct 29 had the highest number of new dwelling permits at 504. The committee wanted this data broken down by year — 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 — with permits issued and units per permit for each year. Kebler moved for the breakdown. Drew Kaza seconded. The motion passed 6-1, with Matt Cyrus voting against.
Map A was eliminated unanimously. Drew Kaza moved to eliminate Map A. Matt Cyrus seconded. The motion passed with every member voting yes. No debate. No dissent. Map A was off the table.
But the real story was the vote that failed. Before Map A was eliminated, Bernie Brader moved to limit the committee’s work to Map C only. Cyrus seconded. If the map were predetermined, this motion would have passed easily. Instead, it failed 4-3. Carol Loesche, Drew Kaza, Melanie Kebler, and Phil Henderson all voted against limiting work to Map C. They wanted to keep Map B alive as an option.
Think about what that means. Four members voted to preserve a competing map. They wanted more deliberation, not less. They were not going to let the committee skip the debate.
Two maps remained. After eliminating Map A, the committee moved forward with Maps B and C. The two maps were identical across 44 of 50 precincts. The differences came down to just six precincts: 2, 5, 12, 25, 33, and 47. That is where the remaining work would happen.
The committee discussed how districts would eventually need commissioner seat numbers assigned for the ballot. Members expressed interest in drawing lots as a fair method. The chair noted this could be included as a recommendation to the Board.
Some members agreed to bring proposals to the next meeting showing how to resolve the remaining six-precinct differences while staying within the adopted guidelines.
What This Means
A predetermined process does not produce a 4-3 vote to keep a competing option on the table. A rubber-stamp committee does not have four members insist on preserving a map that three members wanted to drop. That is not theater. That is real disagreement, resolved by a real vote, in a public meeting.
The committee eliminated Map A unanimously because both sides agreed it was the weakest option. Then it kept Maps B and C — two maps that were already identical across 88% of their precincts. The remaining work would focus on just six precincts where the maps diverged. This was convergence through deliberation. The committee debated, disagreed, voted, and narrowed.
Under at-large voting, Bend picks all five commissioners. Under districts, every part of the county gets a voice. The committee was doing the honest, difficult work of deciding exactly where those district lines should go. The 4-3 vote to keep Map B alive proves they were actually debating — not just following a script.