Following their special Closed Session meeting on Oct. 7th in which they decided to leave Acting City Manager Ana Cortez in that position, the Antioch City Council will hold another special Closed Session meeting on Monday, Oct. 19th to discuss appointing an interim city manager.
As previously reported, City Attorney Lori Asuncion said at the Oct. 7th meeting, “If and when an interim city manager is chosen and an agreement reached, the appointment and agreement will be brought to open session during a regular city council meeting for consideration.”
In addition, during that same meeting the “Council provided direction to staff to move forward with a Request for Proposal process for the permanent city manager recruitment,” she stated.
The 2:00 p.m. meeting will allow for public comments before the Council adjourns into the closed-door session. Members of the public may only comment regarding the one agenda item. To offer public comment via Zoom or by phone, see instructions in themeeting agenda.
Following that they will return to the Council Chambers for the city attorney to report out any action taken.
Antioch has faced a number of challenges over the past year—from legal threats by housing developers to unpaid fuel bills, cuts to critical services, vacant commercial properties, a water park that was left closed all summer, and the loss of the El Campanil Theatre. More than ever, the city needs bold leaders who are capable of seeing things as they really are, thinking clearly, and taking decisive action.
In the District 1 council race, only one candidate has those qualities—and it’s not former Antioch councilwoman Joy Motts.
Joy has deep roots and strong ties in the community. Her passion for Antioch and nonprofit work as president of the Celebrate Antioch Foundation, which puts on the city’s Fourth of July Celebration, are commendable. But her track record as an elected official says something different.
Between 2010 and 2014, when Joy served on the Antioch Unified School District Board of Trustees, the district was operating under a 2009 settlement with the ACLU over discriminatory disciplinary practices against students of color. Joy left the board in 2014 with the problem unresolved—in fact, district data showed Black students were suspended more than 2,700 times during the 2013-14 school year compared with 430 white students, according to a report in the East Bay Times. The East County NAACP would later sue the district over similar issues.
In April 2013, when Joy was board president, the families of several special education kindergartners filed a federal lawsuit against the district, alleging a teacher slapped, pinched and verbally abused their children at Mno Grant Elementary and that the district failed to report the abuse to police or Child Protective Services. Trustees voted to pay $8 million to settle the case.
Joy lost reelection to the school board in 2014, ran again in 2016, and lost that race as well. Then in 2018, she was elected to the Antioch City Council.
On June 18, 2020, in the wake of George Floyd’s murder at the hands of Minneapolis police, the city council held special meetings to decide whether to create an ad hoc committee on police reform. The need was obvious, as the Antioch Police Department did not use body cameras, had no formal policy for reviewing deadly use-of-force incidents, and had already settled several costly lawsuits involving in-custody deaths.
After testimony from 700 Antioch residents, some of whom had personally experienced racism and mistreatment by Antioch police, Joy voted against police reform, opting instead for a series of town halls that went nowhere. That decision would have profound consequences on Antioch taxpayers and the city’s reputation.
Four days after Joy’s vote, on June 22, 2020, APD officer Eric Rombough sent a photo on his phone depicting a large naked Black man with his penis exposed sitting on the neck of George Floyd. That text was one of many later uncovered by a Contra Costa District Attorney’s investigation, which showed that dozens of Antioch police officers had exchanged racist and homophobic messages and that some had admitted committing crimes against people of color, including K-9 attacks.
The texting scandal led to the convictions and prison sentences of several Antioch police officers, federal oversight by the U.S. Department of Justice, and $4.6 million paid to settle civil rights claims filed against the city by 23 victims of police misconduct.
Six months after Joy’s vote, four cops showed up to the home of Navy veteran Angelo Quinto, who was experiencing a mental health crisis. One officer knelt on his neck, leading to his death three days later and ultimately a $7.5 million settlement with the city.
It was left to the new city council majority to clean up a mess that made national headlines—a mess that many in the community saw coming, but not Joy.
The progress Antioch has made since then is now in jeopardy. Mayor Ron Bernal—who as city manager was responsible for overseeing the police department when officers were committing crimes against Antioch residents—has already tried to put the Antioch Police Oversight Commission on hold. Meanwhile, the Angelo Quinto Community Response Team, established to prevent another senseless killing, has seen its hours reduced from 24/7 to 12 hours a day, which could place other lives at risk.
The mayor and his deep-pocketed friends are now vigorously supporting Joy’s campaign because they want a rubber-stamp council. But what they want is not what Antioch needs. The city needs leaders who are capable of collaborating, but who are also ready to stand up and fight for those who don’t have a seat at the table and keep the city out of legal jeopardy.
District 1 already has such a leader in Tamisha Torres-Walker.
Tamisha not only supported the creation of the Angelo Quinto Community Response Team, but also the creation of the Antioch Police Oversight Commission, the city’s first civilian police oversight body, and helped advance body cameras for officers and other critical police reforms.
Tamisha fought to bring in over $10 million in outside funding to the Department of Community Resources, including grants to support gun violence prevention and the city’s paid internship program for young adults. She also championed a $34.9 million grant for permanent supportive housing for the city’s unhoused residents and the creation of the Sycamore Square police substation.
And when it was discovered that Antioch had the highest tenant eviction rates during the pandemic, Tamisha supported ordinances to stabilize rents, protect tenants from landlord harassment, and require just cause evictions. She is now pushing for a vacancy tax to hold absentee property owners accountable and reduce blight.
Too often, voters in cities like Antioch choose candidates who know how to get elected but don’t know how to lead. It’s why the same names keep recycling in and out of positions on the school board and city council.
Sure, they care about Antioch and seem to say the right things. Everyone wants downtown revitalization, safe neighborhoods and functional city services. But they lack the courage, vision, and energy to act decisively in critical moments, before it’s too late.
Tamisha Torres-Walker was built for those moments. She has spent her time on the council listening to constituents, doing the work, and using her council seat to advocate for all Antioch residents—and she has the track record to prove it. District 1 voters need to send her back to the council for four more years of progress.
The Antioch Historical Society is seeking passionate community leaders to join our Board of Directors in 2027.
After 50 years, the Antioch Historical Museum is embarking on an exciting journey of transformation, reimagining how we preserve, share, and celebrate our community’s rich history for future generations. This is a unique opportunity to help guide that vision and ensure that Antioch is preserving its history, including historic buildings.
We are especially interested in individuals with experience in:
• Nonprofit organizations
• Finance and accounting
• Business or organizational leadership
• Fundraising and grant writing.
Serving on the Board is both meaningful and rewarding. You’ll work alongside dedicated volunteers who are passionate about preserving our heritage while helping build a vibrant and sustainable future for the museum.
If you’re ready to contribute your skills, leadership, and enthusiasm to an organization making a difference in our community, we’d love to hear from you.
Please contact us no later than Oct. 25 at 5 p.m. Send email to: carlamarymee@gmail.com if you’re interested.
Join us as we write the next chapter of Antioch’s story.
The Antioch Police Department is asking for the public’s help finding Stephen Simmons, a 33-year-old Antioch man who has a developmental disability and cannot care for himself. Simmons is described as a Black male, 5 feet 6 inches tall, weighing 110 pounds. He was last seen wearing a zip-up jacket and pants.
Simmons was last seen leaving his home in Antioch with a family member on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, at approximately 8:20 p.m. The family member was later located safe in Antioch. The car they were believed to be traveling in was found unoccupied early Friday morning, October 16, on Brannan Street near 7th Street in San Francisco.
Simmons’s current location is unknown. He could be in Antioch, San Francisco, or anywhere in between. The Antioch Police Department is working with the San Francisco Police Department on the search.
Simmons is very soft-spoken and has limited speech. He may not respond to his name or be able to ask for help. Anyone who sees him should approach calmly, stay with him if it is safe to do so, and call 911 right away.
Anyone with information about where Simmons may be, or who saw him at any time since Wednesday night, is asked to contact the Antioch Police Department at (925) 778-2441 and reference case number 26-9954.
Description: • Black male, 33 years old • 5’6″, about 110 lbs, very thin build • Last seen wearing a zip-up jacket and pants
If you have seen Stephen anywhere since Wednesday night, please contact us. Call 911 if you see him. Information: Antioch PD (925) 778-2441 Case #26-9954
AUSD Superintendent Dr. Darnise Williams is suing the District and Area 5 Trustee Mary Rocha. Photos: AUSD
Dr. Darnise Williams, in her 4th job in the past 6 years, claims a “campaign to remove” her for refusing “to overlook questionable payments” and because she “disclosed fiscal and legal noncompliance to officials empowered to correct it,” plus, “she made an internal complaint concerning discriminatory, biased, harassing, and retaliatory treatment by Board leadership, including conduct directed at her as a Black woman” and makesmultiple accusations against Rocha – the only Trustee to vote against hiring her
“I was the only one who didn’t vote to hire her. But on top of it, it takes three votes to get rid of her and she only targets me. Interesting, huh?” – Trustee Mary Rocha
By Allen D. Payton
Embattled Antioch Unified School District Superintendent Dr. Darnise Williams has responded to being placed on paid leave by suing the District, Area 5 Trustee Mary Rocha and unnamed “DOES 1-50” claiming a list of 12 “Damages” including whistleblower retaliation, discrimination, harassment and more. She is seeking a jury trial.
Specifically, the lawsuit, filed in Contra Costa Superior Court on Sept. 23rd, claims race and color discrimination, sex and gender discrimination, age discrimination, plus, Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) retaliation, harassment/hostile work environment, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, breach of written contract, declaratory relief, defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. According to findlaw.com, “Defamation per se means that a false statement was so inherently harmful that further proof of harm isn’t necessary. The statement would have been likely to cause reputational damage regardless of the context.”
Williams doesn’t want punitive damages against the District, just against Rocha.
Background
On a 4-1 vote, with Board President and Area 2 Trustee Dr. Jag Lathan the only school board member to vote “no”, Williams was placed on paid administrative leave on Aug. 25, 2026, after less than 14 months in the job. Williams was hired during the June 11, 2025 School Board meeting on a 3-1 vote with Rocha the lone dissenter and Area 4 Trustee Olga Cobos-Smith absent. This is Williams’ fourth position in the past six years, her starting annual base salary was $353,045, plus contractual benefits, according to the lawsuit, and she was paid $357,234 last school year. (See related article)
The Board agendized the performance evaluation of Williams for that meeting and during three previous meetings, as well.
At their Special Meeting on May 27, which was not live-streamed, the report out reads, “There was no reportable action taken during closed session.”
Then during the August 5 Special Board Meeting, which was also not live-streamed, the report out of Closed Session reads, “The Board took action by unanimous vote of all trustees present to assign Trustee Cobos-Smith with the duty of compiling the Board’s evaluation of the superintendent consistent with Board Policy 2140.”
Finally, during their Regular Meeting on August 19th, the Board again agendized the performance evaluation of the superintendent. But Lathan did not report out from Closed Session any action on the matter.
Cobos Smith was asked ifthe performance evaluation was ever provided to Dr. Williams.
“The evaluation was complete and submitted to her,” she stated in response.
The school board held a special meeting on Oct. 7th during which they met in Closed Session to discuss the lawsuit. Under item A. described as, “CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—Existing Litigation (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9) Name of Case: Dr. Darnise R. Williams v. Antioch Unified School District, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No. C26-03234.”
Since there was no video of the meeting and the minutes are not yet available on the District’s website, asked about the results from that Closed Session, Cobos Smith stated, “There was no reportable action and Dr. Lathan did not attend. The attorney just shared the complaint with us so that we would know about it through official channels before it went public.”
Yet Williams claims in her lawsuit that the Board did not conduct the oral and written annual performance review required by her employment agreement. But later in her lawsuit she claims to have received an “unsatisfactory assessment,” but reiterated that the Board “did not provide the contractually required oral evaluation.”
Cover page of Dr. Williams’ lawsuit against AUSD, Mary Rocha, et al.
Lawsuit Details
In the 30-page complaint, Williams shares the fact that she “is a Black and African-American woman over the age of forty…and therefore belongs to protected race and color classes.” The lawsuit also claims, “She was…qualified for and capable of performing the Superintendent position and performed that work successfully.”
The lawsuit explains Williams “timely presented a written claim to the District as required by the Government Claims Act. The District did not act within the statutory period, and the claim was deemed rejected.”
To support Williams’ claims of damages, the lawsuit provides general accusations and details against both the District, i.e. the Board of Trustees and staff, and specifically, against Rocha.
She claims, “Rocha…personally participated in the harassment alleged” and “Each DOE Defendant participated in, authorized, ratified, aided, or failed to prevent the unlawful conduct alleged here.”
The Introduction reads, “1. This action arises from a public school district’s campaign to remove its first-year Superintendent after she insisted that public funds, employee compensation, fiscal controls, and Board governance comply with law. Plaintiff was hired to lead and stabilize the District. She did that work. When she refused to overlook questionable payments and disclosed fiscal and legal noncompliance to officials empowered to correct it, influential trustees turned the scrutiny onto her.
“2. The retaliation followed a recognizable sequence: race- and gender-charged remarks; escalating personal hostility; dissemination of accusations that an outside investigation did not substantiate; manipulation of the contractual evaluation process; a manufactured unsatisfactory assessment untethered to the agreed performance goals; and, ultimately, removal from active duty on paid administrative leave while the District moved immediately toward interim leadership.
“3. The paid leave is nevertheless materially adverse: it stripped her of the duties and authority of Superintendent, impaired her reputation and future employability, denied contractual evaluation and compensation rights, and positioned the District to end her employment.
“4. The District did not conduct the oral and written annual performance review required by Plaintiff’s written employment agreement. After Plaintiff invoked the contract’s notice-and-cure procedure, the District still failed to complete the agreed review. Under the contract, her evaluation therefore became satisfactory and the applicable salary-step increase was due retroactively. The District instead issued a procedurally defective document built on generalized and stereotyped criticisms.
“5. Plaintiff seeks…no punitive damages against the District…only against Rocha based on malice, oppression, or fraud shown at trial.”
Specific Claims – Discovered Illegal Payments to Trustees,
Williams’ lawsuit offers details about multiple matters and claims the following:
First, regarding her claim of whistleblower status, under section B. Protected Disclosures and Opposition the superintendent alleges she “discovered cash-in-lieu health-benefit payments to trustees, including Rocha, that Plaintiff reasonably believed were unauthorized or otherwise inconsistent with governing law and lawful use of public funds…stopped or corrected the…payments…disclosed the issue to persons with authority to investigate, discover, or correct the noncompliance…sought legal guidance and refused to approve or perpetuate payments she reasonably believed unlawful.” Williams “also disclosed other fiscal and governance concerns, including unauthorized compensation or salary placements, failures of internal control, and conduct she reasonably believed implicated open-meeting, labor, or public-fund requirements…to District officials, Board members, counsel, auditors, fiscal professionals, and other persons or public bodies with authority over” her “or authority to investigate and correct the reported violations.”
Her complaint claims, “The District, Rocha, and other decisionmakers knew of Plaintiff’s disclosures and protected opposition before taking the adverse actions.”
Williams’ lawsuit also shares that, “She made an internal complaint concerning discriminatory, biased, harassing, and retaliatory treatment by Board leadership, including conduct directed at her as a Black woman.”
Claims Rocha Wanted a Latino Superintendent, Plus, Racial, Gender and Age Discrimination by District
Under section C. Defendants Violated Plaintiff’s Civil Rights, the lawsuit continues, “Rocha told Plaintiff (Williams) in substance that Plaintiff had not been Rocha’s preferred choice because Rocha wanted a Latino Superintendent. Rocha also invoked the prior Black Superintendent having been run out of the District. These remarks directly revealed race and ethnicity as considerations in Rocha’s view of District leadership.”
Williams also claims to have “challenged payments benefiting Rocha” and “Rocha and aligned decisionmakers repeatedly cast” the superintendent “through racialized stereotypes: angry, aggressive, threatening, bullying, incoherent, and unprofessional.” But Williams claims, “Those labels were not supported by specific contemporaneous facts and were inconsistent with witness accounts and investigative findings.”
She also claims that treatment was unfair and inconsistent as “the District treated white administrators and executives more favorably in evaluations, discipline, succession decisions, workplace complaints, and access to a fair process. White counterparts who exercised forceful leadership, enforced fiscal controls, rejected improper demands, or encountered complaints were not subjected to the same racialized labels, irregular procedures, removal of duties, or accelerated replacement activity. The comparative records are within Defendants’ possession and control.” However, only the superintendent is hired directly by the school board, while all other top district leaders are hired by the superintendent.
Williams’ complaint also claims, “race and color were substantial motivating reasons for those actions, as shown by direct race-based remarks, racialized stereotypes, materially less favorable treatment than similarly situated white counterparts, disparate handling of complaints, failure to follow objective procedures, and the participation of biased decisionmakers” and she was subjected as “a Black woman in the District’s highest executive position, to gendered and intersectional stereotypes” and that she was treated differently than “similarly situated male leaders” and that her “sex and gender were substantial motivating reasons for the altered evaluation, denial of compensation rights, removal of duties, paid leave, and succession activity, independently and in combination with race and color.”
Finally, Williams claims she “was over forty and qualified for the Superintendent position” and that “decisionmakers favored materially younger candidates for interim or permanent leadership, evaluated younger leaders more favorably, and considered Plaintiff’s age when accelerating succession planning” and claims further that her “age was a substantial motivating reason for the altered evaluation, denial of compensation rights, removal of duties, paid leave, and succession activity.”
Yet, after placing Williams on leave, the Board hired a retired superintendent, Jose Banda, who began his education career in 1984, as the District’s interim superintendent which would place his age to be in the mid-60’s.
Alleged Physical Incident with Rocha
Under section D. Manufactured Complaints and a Predetermined Evaluation, Williams claims an alleged physical incident with Rocha was “a brief interaction” in which she “did not yell at, threaten, touch, hit, block, or accost Rocha, and did not shake a phone in her face. Contemporaneous witnesses reported that Plaintiff was not angry and did nothing improper.” Further, the superintendent claims, “Rocha initially indicated that Plaintiff’s phone was not in her face and that she was fine. She later filed a formal complaint portraying the exchange as angry, aggressive, threatening, and physical.”
Williams’ lawsuit also claims that Rocha “later falsely stated as an asserted fact that Plaintiff hit or physically assaulted her” and “knew the accusation was false because no such contact occurred” with which Rocha disagrees (see below), and that, “Rocha advanced the accusation at a critical point in Plaintiff’s evaluation cycle, circulated it within the Board, and used it to advocate for Plaintiff’s removal.”
The superintendent’s complaint further explains, “An outside investigation did not sustain the principal accusation against Plaintiff,” with which Rocha agrees (see below). But Williams states, “The District nevertheless continued to rely on the accusation’s stigmatizing themes and allowed Rocha to participate in decisions affecting Plaintiff.”
Unfair, Incomplete Evaluation, Changed Process, Not Neutral or Done in Good-Faith
In that same section, Williams claims, “Before a fair evaluation was completed, Board members and agents changed the agreed process, marginalized the agreed goals, and relied on generalized complaints that staff felt bullied, that Plaintiff’s communications lacked clarity, that accountability was absent, and that social-media complaints had increased.” Further the superintendent claims the Board, “did not fairly apply the agreed instrument to the mutually established goals, and did not identify concrete facts sufficient to permit meaningful response,” and that “The assessment was signed or supported by persons who had participated in accusations against Plaintiff or had conflicts affecting their neutrality. Other trustees did not sign it. The process was irreconcilable with a neutral, good-faith evaluation.”
Finally in that section, Williams alleges, she “timely submitted a detailed written rebuttal. Defendants did not cure the process or apply the contract’s deemed-satisfactory provision and earned salary increase.”
Alleges Rocha Committed Unlawful Conduct, Made Defamatory Statements
Under section E. Rocha’s Unlawful Conduct and Defamatory Statements, Williams repeats her accusations against Rocha and further claims the Area 5 Trustee, “voluntarily republished the false accusation” that Williams “hit or physically assaulted” Rocha both “orally and in writing to District employees, community members, and other third persons who had no official role in, legitimate need for, or common interest in any such proceeding” and that “Those extrajudicial republications were not made in any official proceeding, were not made to initiate or achieve the objects of any official proceeding, and were not logically related to any such proceeding.”
Williams further claims that Rocha’s accusations, “directly injured Plaintiff in her profession as Superintendent by portraying her as violent, dangerous, and unfit to lead a public school district. It caused presumed and actual reputational, professional, economic, and emotional harm” and “District administrators and supervisory employees knew or reasonably should have known of Rocha’s hostility, bias, escalating retaliation, false accusation, and the foreseeable risk of reputational and emotional harm. They nevertheless failed to use reasonable care to separate conflicted actors, supervise the process, prevent unnecessary dissemination, correct known falsehoods, and conduct a neutral evaluation and investigation.”
Thus, Williams’ lawsuit asserts, “Those operational failures were negligent acts and omissions of District employees acting within the scope of their employment, not a claim that the District is directly liable at common law or liable
for Rocha’s misrepresentation” and their “conduct caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress and the other injuries alleged above.”
Alleges Being Placed on Leave by Board Was “Planned”
Finally, under section F. Paid Administrative Leave and Continuing Harm, Williams’ lawsuit claims that since, for the special Board meeting on Aug. 25th, “the agenda combined Plaintiff’s evaluation, dismissal or discipline, and appointment of interim leadership” the “sequence reflected that the result had been planned before any lawful and fair decision making process was completed.”
Actually, both terms “acting” and “interim” were included on the agenda for that meeting, and the items were options provided to the Board so, that if the second action was taken, they could take the third action and not have to wait to come back at a future meeting to appoint an acting superintendent. The three agenda items read: “A. Public Employee Evaluation – Superintendent; B. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release; and C. Public Employee Appointment – Acting and/or Interim Superintendent.”
However, it does appear that both individuals to fill the roles of acting and interim superintendent were already lined up. After announcing Williams had been placed on leave, Board President Dr. Jag Lathan reported out that the Board also, “took action in Closed Session by a unanimous vote…to appoint Ed Dacus as Acting Superintendent effective August 26th through August 30th, 20206 and Jose Banda as Interim Superintendent effective August 31st, 20206 through and until his services are no longer needed.”
Williams lawsuit claims, “When immediate termination could not lawfully proceed at that meeting, Defendants relied on a separate electronic-signature allegation as a basis to remove Plaintiff from active duty and open another investigation,” and that “interim or successor activity began before the formal leave decision, further showing pretext and predetermined removal.”
As a result, she alleges, “The leave nevertheless removed Plaintiff’s authority, duties, access, and professional platform as Superintendent; stigmatized her before staff and the community; interfered with contractual performance; impaired her reputation and future earning capacity; and denied the salary increase due under the agreement,” and she “has suffered and continues to suffer economic loss, lost contractual compensation and benefits, loss of professional opportunities, injury to reputation, humiliation, anxiety, panic symptoms, sleep disruption, headaches, emotional distress, and related harm.”
Finally, Williams complaint claims, “The temporal proximity, shifting explanations, deviation from established procedure, selective investigations, direct bias evidence, and use of unsupported stereotypes demonstrate that Plaintiff’s protected disclosures and protected characteristics were substantial or contributing reasons for the adverse actions,” and “If Defendants terminate her or otherwise reduce compensation, she will seek the resulting back pay, front pay, severance, benefits, retirement losses, and future earning losses.”
Causes of Action
The lawsuit then lists the 12 causes of action:
1. Whistleblower Retaliation — Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 1102.6 Against District and DOES 1–25
2. Race and Color Discrimination — Government Code § 12940(a) Against District and DOES 1–25
3. Sex and Gender Discrimination — Government Code § 12940(a) Against District and DOES 1–25
4. Age Discrimination — Government Code § 12940(a) Against District and DOES 1–25
5. FEHA Retaliation — Government Code § 12940(h) Against District and DOES 1–25
6. Harassment and Hostile Work Environment — Government Code § 12940(j) Against All Defendants
7. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation – Government Code § 12940(k) Against District and DOES 1–25
8. Breach of Written Contract Against District and DOES 1–25
9. Declaratory Relief Against District and DOES 1–25
10. Defamation Per Se Against Rocha and DOES 26–30
11. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against Rocha and DOES 26–30
12. Negligence — Government Code §§ 815, 815.2, and 820 Against District and DOES 31–50
Relief Sought
Williams seeks the following 11 items as relief:
From the District she wants, “general, special, compensatory, and consequential damages according to proof, including emotional-distress and reputational damages;
“economic damages…including unpaid contractual compensation and benefits, lost professional opportunities, and impaired earning capacity;
“back pay, front pay, severance, lost benefits, retirement losses, and future earnings to the extent such losses accrue and are recoverable; and
“the civil penalty authorized by Labor Code section 1102.5(f); That section is about retaliation and reads, “an employer is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per employee for each violation of this section to be awarded to the employee who was retaliated against.”
Williams also seeks, “declaratory relief determining the parties’ rights and obligations under the employment agreement;
“the District to correct or remove the defective evaluation, honor the deemed-satisfactory and salary provisions, cease unlawful retaliation and discrimination, preserve relevant evidence, and provide other appropriate prospective relief;
“reasonable attorney’s fees; and costs of suit and prejudgment and postjudgment interest as permitted by law.”
From Rocha Williams wants, “presumed and actual damages for defamation per se against Rocha, including reputational, professional, and economic harm; punitive and exemplary damages against Rocha only on the harassment, defamation, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims, in an amount sufficient to punish and deter.”
Finally, Williams wants, “other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.”
Rocha Responds, Doesn’t Have Copy of Lawsuit
Rocha is the only incumbent running for re-election and the only one specifically named in the lawsuit.
When reached for comment Trustee Rocha said, “I was the only one who didn’t vote to hire her. But on top of it, it takes three votes to get rid of her and she only targets me. Interesting, huh?”
“She’s suing me for $5 million, is what I was told,” she added. But the lawsuit does not list any specific total dollar amount that Williams is seeking.
Asked if she attended the Oct. 7th Closed Session meeting Rocha said, “I was there.” Asked if she had to hire her own attorney she said, “No, not under these circumstances since I’m under the school board and the school district attorney represents me, is my understanding.”
Asked if she’s seen the lawsuit or has a copy of it, Rocha said, “I haven’t asked. I haven’t even been bothered with it, right now.” But it was reviewed with her and the other Board members during their Closed Session meeting on Oct. 7th.
Asked about the claim that she told Williams she wanted a Latino superintendent instead, Rocha said, “Yes, it’s true I didn’t vote for her. But that doesn’t mean I’m racist. I told her about the Hispanic candidate and that they were both equal in their background. But majority rules.”
“A majority of students in the District are Hispanic,” she pointed out.
Rocha also spoke about the incident with Williams when she claims things got physical saying, “It was during one of the meetings at the Deer Valley High theater between the restrooms and the state. “Dee saw it happen and stepped in between us.”
“I filed a letter to put in her file. I have never done that in my life. The attorney found it was no cause,” she added.
“They’re trying to find something to kick me out because they haven’t been able to,” Rocha stated. Then about why she’s running again said, “I want to get back there because I want to clean up things she’s made a mess of.”
“When people look at the disaster in the District, they’re going to think I’m part of it. But I didn’t vote for her. I didn’t vote for the wages. I didn’t vote for a lot of things,” Rocha stated. “I’ve been fighting this all the way, but I didn’t have the other two votes. Then two of them did join me,” referring to Brown and Cobos Smith. She said that occurred following the incident when things allegedly got physical.
Rocha faces one opponent in the November election, which will be held on Tuesday, Nov. 3rd. Lathan chose not to run for re-election for Area 2 Trustee and only Roxanne Reece filed to run.
By Diana Oyler, Sr. Deputy, Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office & Office of Communications & Media
(Martinez, CA) – Contra Costa County is seeking applicants to fill one vacancy on the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees. County residents age 18 and older are encouraged to apply. The appointment, made by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, will be for a two or four-year term beginning January 7, 2027.
Established in 1927, the District provides public health services throughout Contra Costa County by controlling mosquitoes, rats, skunks, yellowjackets and other vectors that can transmit disease. These efforts help protect public health and prevent outbreaks that could disrupt recreational, residential, agricultural and industrial activities.
The District Board of Trustees meets at 7 p.m. on the second Monday of every other month in Concord. Trustees receive a $100 monthly expense stipend, contingent on meeting attendance.
Applications are available by calling the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at (925) 655-2000 or by visiting https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/3418. Completed applications must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar St., Martinez, CA 94553, by 5 p.m. Monday, November 9, 2026.
Applicants should be available to participate in public interviews conducted virtually via Zoom on Monday, November 23, 2026.
– Student proficiency in math and English language arts rose slightly, though remains below pre-Covid levels, according to newly released California standardized test scores.
– Achievement gaps persist between Black and Latino students and white and Asian students.
– It’s likely still too early to see improvements from investments in early literacy.
California students’ proficiency in math and English language arts follows the same trend in 2026 as the past few years: incremental improvement from the year prior, with the majority of students below grade-level standards.
The state’s release of 2025-26 student test scores on Thursday showed slight growth in several areas, but California still hasn’t reached the elusive milestone of raising scores back to pre-Covid levels.
In English language arts, 49.3% of students scored proficient or advanced in 2025-26, up just a half percentage point from the previous year, according to the latest standardized test results released Thursday.
In math, the number of students earning a proficient or advanced score increased by 1.2 percentage points, with 38.4% earning proficient or advanced.
Prior to the pandemic, in 2018-19, 51.7% of California students met or exceeded state standards in English language arts, and 39.7% were proficient in math.
Fewer students — 36% — achieved a proficient or advanced score on the science test, though it was the subject with the most improvement. The portion of students meeting standards in science rose 3.3 percentage points since last year, and 6.1 points since before the pandemic.
“Today’s results tell a story of continued progress, but also of the work that remains ahead,” Linda Darling-Hammond, president of the State Board of Education, said in a statement. “Our responsibility now is to build on this momentum and ensure that progress reaches every student and every community.”
Black and Latino students made larger gains than white and Asian students but yawning racial and ethnic achievement gaps remain. Black students were the only group to surpass pre-pandemic proficiency levels in both math and English.
While education leaders are often encouraged by academic growth, the pace of growth — half a percent to a little over a percent in most cases — is “unacceptable,” said Troy Flint, chief information officer at the California School Boards Association.
“It does not suggest that we have the right strategic or operational infrastructure in place to properly support our school districts and county offices of education in accelerating student achievement,” Flint said. “We need serious reforms to state level education governance and operations and assessment, or we will never deliver for our kids at the level that we need.”
Disparities persist among different racial, ethnic, socioeconomic groups
The number of proficient Black and Latino students remains far below their white and Asian peers, and similar gaps exist between students based on income.
The number of Black students reaching proficiency in English language arts increased 0.9 percentage points from last year to 33.7%. The number of proficient Latino students rose to 39.6%, a gain of 0.8 percentage points from last year. Asian students’ proficiency fell by 0.9 percentage points to 73.5%. About 61.7% of white students scored proficient in English language arts, a figure essentially flat from the prior year.
In math, about 21.5% of Black students scored proficient, a 1.5 percentage-point improvement from 2025, the highest jump across the four student groups. About 27% of the state’s Latino students scored proficient, 1.2 percentage points higher than 2025. Asian students (70.5% math proficiency) and white students (51.4%) saw more modest growth.
Although socioeconomically disadvantaged students improved in both subjects, most still did not meet standards. About six in 10 (61.1%) did not meet the English standards. Nearly three in four (72.6%) did not meet the math standards.
The achievement gap between students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and the rest of their peers remains at about 30 percentage points in both subjects.
Melissa Valenzuela-Stookey, research director at EdTrust West, called the test scores “sobering.”
“Once again, the results show glaring gaps in outcomes for Black and Latino students, Native American students, English learners and students from low-income households, which suggests that our systems still aren’t providing the supports and opportunities they need to reach their full potential,” Valenzuela-Stookey said.
No improvement in early reading yet
The percentage of California third graders who scored proficient or advanced on the English language arts test stayed flat, from 44.2% in 2024-25 to 44.1% in 2025-26.
The state has invested millions in improving how schools teach children to read, but it is likely too soon to see many results from the new policies. Last year, schools began screening all students in grades K-2 for risk of reading difficulties to provide support for kids who need it.
The children who benefited from that last year won’t take standardized tests until this school year. The State Board of Education only recently approved a list of literacy training programs for districts to use.
“While the state has gotten a lot more focused on improving reading, it’s not surprising it wouldn’t have an impact yet,” said Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice and one of the advocates that pushed for the reading reforms. “The earliest you would see impacts from those policies directly would be this school year.”
English language proficiency
More than 133,000 English learners —15.4% — tested as proficient on the English Language Proficiency Assessment for California (ELPAC) in 2025-26. Under a new state law, those students are now eligible to be automatically reclassified as fluent and proficient in English. The percentage of English learners who achieved proficiency was similar to last school year.
English learners who have not yet achieved proficiency in English tend to do poorly on standardized tests, but once they are reclassified as fluent in English, they often do better on tests than native English speakers.
In 2025-26, 60.9% of former English learners achieved proficiency in English language arts, compared to 53.5% of native English speakers.
Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, a nonprofit advocacy group for English learners, said the scores show that the state needs to do more work to make sure English learners have full access to the curriculum in all subjects and to move more students to proficiency.
“Students who become proficient in English do not stop becoming part of the English learner success story,” Hernandez said.
Dashboard released simultaneously
For the first time this year, the California Department of Education released the test scores at the same time as the “dashboard,” the state’s accountability system. The dashboard measures schools’ improvement over time on test scores and on other measures, such as graduation, college and career readiness, suspension and chronic absenteeism.
The state gives schools a color of the rainbow ranging from red (signaling the least achievement or improvement), orange, yellow, green and blue (signaling the highest achievement).
The state gave schools an overall score of orange for English language arts, and yellow for math and science.
Jessica Sawko, director of education at Children Now, advocated for science to be included in the state’s accountability system because she said science helps prepare students for college and career.
She said it was “heartening” to hear that there was improvement in science scores, but the percentage of students achieving proficiency is much too low.
“Here we are at not even 40% of kids achieving proficiency or better. That’s more than half of the kids not there yet, and yet we’re at a yellow?” she said.
Antioch Unified School District’s Performance OverviewChart
