Page One

After a bitter process, the City Council finalized the revised council districts Tuesday, then immediately put them in jeopardy by approving a plan that could alter the city’s political landscape by creating a district where students are in control. 

After finalizing the new district boundaries, the council resurrected the idea of a student-led district, a plan the council was unable – because of City Charter constraints – to consider when it voted on the new boundaries.  

Tuesday, the council adopted a plan where students and community would work together to write a charter amendment to create a student-dominated district. The amendment would go before the voters in November 2002. 

A divided council approved the proposed plan by a 5-2-2 vote with councilmembers Miriam Hawley and Betty Olds voting in opposition and Mayor Shirley Dean and Councilmember Polly Armstrong abstaining. The proposed charter amendment plan will come back to council on Oct. 30 for further discussion and possible approval. 

The conceptual plan approved Tuesday, submitted by Councilmember Kriss Worthington, calls for the formation of a council subcommittee to work with student representatives, property owners, neighborhood groups and local businesses to formulate a student district plan, which will be presented to voters as a charter amendment. 

A charter amendment is necessary to create the student district because districts 7 and 8 will have to be significantly reconfigured, and the charter allows only minimum changes to existing district boundary lines.  

For that reason, a redistricting proposal, submitted by the Associated Students of the University of California in August, was not considered by the council during the recently-completed redistricting process. 

Dean said she was surprised by the Worthington recommendation because she had been led to believe from a telephone conversation with the ASUC Vice President of External Affairs Josh Fryday that the existing plan would be presented to the council to be put on the March ballot. 

After the council approved the plan, Dean confronted Fryday outside the Council Chambers. “Everybody thought you wanted to put the ASUC plan on the ballot,” Dean said. “We’re trying to work with you and then we get punched in the head.” 

Armstrong, who failed to carry a substitute motion, which would have put the existing student plan on the March ballot, said if students wait until November to put the revised proposal on the ballot, the earliest a student would be able to run for election would be 2004. 

Fryday said he didn’t think it was prudent to put the existing student plan on the March ballot and that the plan would stand a better chance of approval if it contained community input. He said changing the charter is the critical thing. 

“Students are always going to be here,” he said. “I want a student district as soon as possible and having a better plan is the best way to do that.” 

Dean said Wednesday that the students were “manipulated” by the council’s progressive faction. She said the progressives have two goals: Protecting Worthington in District 7 and not alienating the student vote. 

“This plan precludes a student running against Councilmember Worthington in District 7 in November,” she said. “And I can’t believe that the students are so gullible that they decided to roll over and play dead for their own cause.” 

Worthington dismissed Dean’s statements as more of her “incessant political attacks.” He added that if the students did put their plan on the March ballot, as the moderates suggested, it would likely fail because of the traditional low-voter turnout for primary elections. 

He said even if the student plan “defied logic” and did win in March, it could be rendered obsolete by ongoing efforts to correct a census blunder that resulted in an undercount of approximately 4,000 Berkeley residents, mostly students. The City Charter requires districts to be redrawn with the most recent census numbers. 

Worthington added that he has consistently supported students by appointing them to commissions and boards, which are considered a training ground for potential councilmembers.  

“Dean didn’t appoint any students during her first 17 years in office and in the last couple of years she generally has one student, one Asian and one Latino,” he said. “I call that institutionalized tokenism.” 

If the student plan is approved as a charter amendment, students will face the difficult task of demonstrating to Berkeley residents why students, largely transitory residents who don’t own property, should be involved in city politics. 

“That’s the main reason why we want to take our time,” Fryday said, “we want to put forward a plan that everybody will be comfortable with.”