The redistricting process became more complicated at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting as new maps were introduced and ethics accusations levelled.

Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy called the integrity of the Citizens Advisory Redistricting Committee into question after finding out one of the committee members anonymously submitted a map.

In a move Mayor Kevin Johnson called disappointing, both Sheedy and Councilman Steve Cohn submitted their own maps, adding to the final four recommended by the citizens committee.

One of the final four maps recommended by the committee was listed as having an anonymous author, but it was revealed in the past few days that it was drawn by Steve Hansen, one of the committee members – a move that split the council and the committee.

“That’s wrong,” Sheedy said. “I think there was a real serious ethical lapse here. I guess my Catholic background tells me that there was a lie of omission.”

During public comment on the issue, Hansen contended that by turning in an anonymous map, it allowed his map to be judged on merit and not based on the fact that he presented it.

Hansen is active in the gay community, which advocated for recognizing the LGBT community as one of the “communities of interest,” which the law orders to be kept together.

“There’s no doubt that you are afraid of what redistricting brings,” Hansen said to the council in a nod to the fact that some redistricting options would pit council members against one another as their districts are redrawn.

“We’re supposed to live in a meritocracy,” Hansen said, “but merit does not stand on its own.”

He pointed out that several council members submitted maps through proxies and said that he was not in violation of the guidelines, which allowed for anonymous submissions.

Other committee members said during public comment that they did not know the map was drawn by Hansen.

Bill Camp, the committee member appointed by Sheedy, echoed Sheedy’s sentiments about the process.

“This process has no integrity,” he said. “There’s no honesty in these plans. It was a scam.”

Councilman Jay Schenirer, who who appointed Hansen, said he wasn’t aware that Hansen had authored the map until a couple of days ago.

Schenirer said he doesn’t want to throw out the work of the committee and trusts that Hansen’s map was judged on its own merit.

Johnson said he wishes it had been done a little bit differently, but does not think it affects the integrity of the process.

“I guess in hindsight I wish you would have put your name on the darned thing, but I don’t think by any stretch of the imagination should your map not be considered,” he said.

Other speakers during public comment – of which there were about 12 – generally advocated for lumping the central city into one district. It is currently split into three districts. Others wanted their neighborhoods – notably Del Paso Heights – kept together.

Three of the four maps from the committee kept the central city together, as well as both of the maps submitted by council members.

Cohn was first to debut his map, suggesting that the committee overlooked the need to keep Sacramento’s individual neighborhoods together.

“What I tried to do with this map is keep neighborhoods together,” he said. “The net result is I lose Midtown. From a sentimental standpoint, it’s very difficult.”

He said people made a persuasive case for keeping the central city together.

Sheedy introduced her map next, arguing that the other maps all split parts of North Sacramento or lumped other areas together where there is no physical connectivity, as they are split by a drainage canal and railroad tracks.

Sheedy said that her map better represents minorities, giving the Latino population a 30 percent stake in four districts.

The introduction of the two maps by council members was a move Johnson called disappointing.

“I thought we had the chance, with the citizens advisory committee, to really take politics out of the equation,” he said, adding that the greatest thing the council could do to honor the work of the committee would be to choose one of its four maps.

“I think what we’re doing today is undermining the whole process,” he said. “We use words like transparency, and we said that over and over, and all of a sudden we whip out two maps today.”

The next scheduled hearing on the redistricting maps will be held Aug. 9, and another meeting on Aug. 23 is scheduled, where the council is expected to make a motion of intent to choose one of the maps.

It is likely that whichever of the six maps is chosen will have its boundaries adjusted during the process before the final approval.

Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow him on Twitter @Brandon_Darnell.