Harper recall reboot: proponents fail to publish notice in time, blame misinformation, city delays

City offices closed Fridays; Simonsen was out of the country; No one knew or said in what format the notice should be published, until Wednesday, October 29; Mayor reaches out to recall leader; Proponents to try again

By Allen Payton

If those who are attempting to recall Antioch Mayor Wade Harper still want to, they have to start the process over, because they missed a publication deadline.

According to Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen in an email to recall leader Rich Buongiorno, on Wednesday, November 5, which can be viewed here. Letter to Mr_ Buongiorno dated 11-4-14, he stated “You failed to meet the statutory deadlines of the Elections Code for the submission of the proof of publication of the Notice of Intention and two blank copies of the Petition.”

According to Simonsen the recall proponents have to start over with new papers and new signatures.

“They can’t use any papers they already used. But, it can be the same wording,” he said.

The notice of intent had to be published in a newspaper of general circulation, within 10 days of the date the recall proponents received Mayor Harper’s response. That occurred on Thursday, October 23, although he submitted it to the City Clerk, the day before.

The only newspapers of general circulation, by legal definition, in Antioch are the East County Times and the Antioch News. The Herald has not yet gone through the adjudication process to be defined as such.

The last day for publication of the notice was Monday, November 3. However, it wasn’t published in the East County Times until Tuesday, November 4, one day too late, although recall leader Rich Buongiorno submitted it for publication on Thursday, October 30, due to the Times’ deadline schedule.

The recall papers were in fact ready to submit to the newspaper on Wednesday, October 22,” he said.

At that point Buongiorno did not know the proper publishing format of the recall papers, to comply with the requirements of the Elections Code, which merely says “publication of the notice of intention.”

Simonsen was out of the country during that time, and didn’t return until Sunday, November 2 and was unavailable by cell phone, but maintained contact by email.

Buongiorno had first planned to publish the notice in the Herald. So this writer contacted the City Clerk’s office and spoke with Assistant City Clerk Christina Garcia to find out what the format should be for publishing the notice. She said she didn’t know and suggested contacting the California Secretary of State’s office or the County Clerk.

Neither the Secretary of State’s office, whose staff consulted their attorney who handles recall elections, nor the County Clerk could answer the question to Herald staff, of what format or size had to be to “print the notice of intent to recall.”

In a second phone call with Garcia, she came to the conclusion that the forms needed to be printed full-size.

But, after the Herald received an email on Wednesday, October 22, from City Attorney Lynn Tracy Nerland that the Herald is not a “paper of general circulation” and Buongiorno was informed of that fact, he went that day to the East County Times’ office and submitted the intention form for publishing.

But, publication of the form had to wait until the recall proponents received Harper’s response. That occurred by certified mail in the late afternoon of Thursday, October 23, even though the city had received it from him on Wednesday, October 22.

There was insufficient time for me to go down to the city clerk’s office to find out the formatting information, that afternoon,” Buongiorno stated. “Since City Hall is closed on Fridays I had to wait until Monday, October 27, to get my answer.”

Buongornio went to the City Clerk’s office on Monday. Garcia also told him to check with the Secretary of State’s office or County Clerk’s office, who both told him the same thing, that it was a local issue and up to the City Clerk to decide.

On Tuesday, Buongiorno sent recall supporter Marie Crandell to City Hall to speak with Garcia. When she was told the same thing by Garcia that Buongiorno was, the day before, Crandell asked to speak with the city attorney.

Crandell was then told by City Attorney Lynn Tracy Nerland that she didn’t know the format the notice should be published, but would get back to her by Thursday,

But, then, Simonsen responded by email on Wednesday morning, October 29 at 8:33 a.m., telling Buongiorno which format was acceptable to be published.

The example you provided (East County Times recall publication Legal Notice.pdf) meets the requirements of Election Code 11022,” Simonsen wrote Buongiorno.

However, Buongiorno didn’t see Simonsen’s email until that afternoon. Once he had, he then called the Times office and told them which format to use. But, they had to make a change to include the fact that Harper had responded. That change wasn’t made until after the Times’ deadline for publishing by November 3.

So, he was too late.

Nevertheless, Buongiorno says the Times staff scheduled the publication, the next day, on Thursday, October 30, which met their deadline for publication in their Tuesday, November 4 edition of the paper.

Once he had a copy of Tuesday’s newspaper, Buongiorno says he then submitted the proof of publication to the City Clerk’s office in front of both Simonsen and Garcia, who told him he was a day late and that there was nothing Simonsen could do, and referred him to the Secretary of State or Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), providing him with phone numbers for both.

But, the Secretary of State told Buongiorno that they only handle state-related recalls and the FPPC said they have nothing to do with elections, including recalls.

When asked why the recall proponents didn’t hire an attorney, from the beginning, Buongiorno said he is funding the effort on his own and paid the $226 for the cost of publishing the notice in the Times, and didn’t have the money for an attorney.

We’ve wasted two months, and I’ve spent money for nothing,” a frustrated Buongiorno said. “The City had the latitude to accept or reject. There is no official format. It’s up to the City Clerk. Only instructions of what information the forms must contain was provided to us.”

The City Clerk has the full responsibility and latitude of accepting or rejecting a form. They also have the ability to grant leniency for additional days, which they already proved. That’s not part of the rules, they made that up. What both the Secretary of State and County Clerk are saying, it’s up to the City Clerk, because it’s a local issue.”

So not only with the forms but also with the timing, the city has leniency,” Buongiorno stated.

Simonsen responds

However, Simonsen took a different view.

We told him at the beginning the East County Times was the only paper of general circulation,” Simonsen said. “We explained to him what he had to do. The Elections Code clearly states you publish the notice of intention, after the person being recalled responds.”

Buongiorno asked for an example of it [what the printed version should look like]. But, Simonsen said he doesn’t have an example of it and couldn’t provide it.

Simonsen said he did everything possible to accommodate Buongiorno.

I chose to use the date that Buongiorno received it [Harper’s reponse], which was on October 23,” he said. “So I gave him an extra day. All he had to do was follow the Elections Code. It states he had to print the notice of intention to recall, which is word for word.”

We don’t provide attorney services to the general public,” he added. “Buongiorno didn’t have to publish the forms full size in the paper. The signatures don’t have to show up. Just the words and the names.”

But, the Clerk’s office is not a legal office,” Simonsen stated. “That’s why I told him to consult a political consultant who has done recalls or an attorney, back at the beginning.”

Regardless of the size Buongiorno published the notice, or whether or not it included the signatures, if he had simply published it in time, I would have been very graceful,” he shared. “I bent over backwards with the him. Even with the one day late notice, the City Attorney and I tried to give him a grace period. But the City Attorney said it’s statutory and it’s hard and fast and pretty clear what had to be done.”

Simonsen explained the process.

Once he turns in the proof of publication, I have to make sure the wording is correct,” he stated. “There is a rolling 10-day period. If there’s a change, the 10-days start over.”

Simonsen was adamant about the City Attorney’s decision that Buongiorno was a day late.

The word ‘shall’ is in the Elections Code, not ‘would’ not ‘can,’” Simonsen pointed out. “He was explained the statutory rules regarding the dates, and he wanted me to do a lot of this for him, but it’s not the clerk’s job.”

Following is Buongiorno’s email to city staff, on Wednesday, November 5, detailing the timeline of what transpired, in response to Simonsen’s emailed letter on Tuesday, November 4:

Recall Debacle

Rich [email address deleted]

This message was sent with High importance.

Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 2:19 PM

To: Simonsen, Arne

Cc: Nerland, Lynn Tracy

Dear Mr. Simonsen,

Under your advice, I have been in contact with the FPPC who advised me that they do not handle “recall” elections and consequently referred me to the Secretary of State, as you had also recommended. The Secretary of State representative, after conferring with their attorney, advised me that this is a local issue and the latitude lies entirely on a local level or if necessary with the courts.

The two primary reasons for the 5-day delay in publication is as follows:

  • On October 23, 2014, I received by certified USPS mail, Harpers “answer” to the recall. Had it been received earlier, that would have allowed me to proceed and consult with the Deputy City Clerk. Instead, I was forced in to waiting until the next business day to consult with the Deputy City Clerk Christina Garcia. However, due to City Hall staff being furloughed on Friday’s, and not open at all on Saturday’s and Sunday’s, I had to wait until 10/27/2014 to attempt to get the needed consultation. This created the beginning of a 3 day delay in publication.

  • On October 27, 2014, after presenting a simple question regarding the format needed for the publication of the “Notice Of Intention to Circulate Recall Petition” in a local newspaper, I was advised by Deputy City Clerk Christina Garcia, that I should contact the Secretary of State or an attorney for that information. Please note; Deputy City Clerk Christina Garcia was presented with the question due your absence. This created the 4th day delay in publication due to the misinformation provided by Ms. Garcia.

  • Later that day, and on my behalf, Marie Crandell, my authorized representative, did contact the Secretary of State’s office who referred her to the Elections Office in Martinez, who in turn referred her back to the City Clerk for determination and final decision. All parties making the referrals did so because the decision on the format of the publication is determined on a local level. As a matter of fact, they stated that everything, other than signature verification, is performed on a local level.

  • The following day, October 28, 2014, upon speaking with Ms Garcia, Marie Crandell did advise her that she had contacted the Secretary of State’s Office, as well as the Elections Office in Martinez. She advised Ms Garcia that both the Secretary of State’s Office and the Elections Office referred her back to the City Clerk’s office, as this was a local decision. They had also stated that the City Attorney could provide assistance to the City Clerk in making that decision. Marie Crandell was once again advised by Ms Garcia, that she should contact the Secretary of State or an attorney for that information, and that she was given the wrong information from both the Secretary of State and Elections Office in Martinez. Please note; Deputy City Clerk Christina Garcia was presented with the question due your absence.

  • As such, Ms. Crandell, requested to have a meeting with the City Attorney Lynn Nerland. She apprised Ms. Nerland of the situation and Ms. Nerland did admit that she did not have an answer to that formatting question, however, that she would do some research and get back to us no later than Thursday. If we did not hear from her by Thursday, we should call her. Ms. Nerland also requested that I send an authorization to all concerned parties to authorize the discussion of all business related to the recall with Ms. Crandell.

  • Therefore, the same day I sent forthwith, via email the authorization to the City Attorney, Deputy City Clerk and yourself. I also attached the two proposed publication formats, provided by the East County Times, for authorization. This has now created a five-day delay in publication due to the unavailable city staff, weekend, and misinformation supplied by Deputy City Clerk Christina Garcia on TWO consecutive days.

  • On October 29, 2014, I received an email from you. In it, you were kind enough to respond to the formatting issue and advised which of the two formats supplied by the East County Times was acceptable. I should add that the East County Times, had they been provided the information in a timely manner, could have published this notice on 10/24/2014, well within the allowed timeframe.

East County Times had the correctly formatted notice and was requesting authorization to proceed on 10/22/2014. The notice was published on 11/04/2014, far later than the the original 10/24/2014 date. However, one day later than the 10 day date due to the unavailability of city staff and misinformation supplied by Deputy City Clerk Christina Garcia on TWO consecutive days

I was advised by the Secretary of State representative that remedies of this type are handled on a local level for recalls. They would not send an email to all parties concerned because they could be brought in as one of the parties if this ends up for judicial review.

I am requesting that you consult with the City Attorney regarding this unfortunate situation because legal recall remedies are locally determined, just as the formatting of the notice publication was a local determination.

I personally feel that I should not be penalized for being 1 day late when I made an obvious concerted effort to ensure publication within the specified time frame, only to be delayed through no fault of my own, but a series of frustrating circumstances predicated by the lack of qualified personnel and availability of said personnel.

I am readily available to attend this meeting if your feel it necessary.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard Buongiorno

Recall to restart

In spite of Buongiorno’s belief that the City Clerk and City Attorney could have accepted the publication of the notice in the newspaper one day late, neither he nor the other recall proponents and supporters are going to fight it. Instead, they are resigned to starting the process again.

In an email of a Facebook posting by Buongiorno on both is personal page and the “Recall Wade Harper” page, on Thursday afternoon, November 6, he wrote:

This little bit of news you are not going to be happy with. Myself, I am quite unhappy. Heavy Sigh

The Antioch story of David & Goliath

I have just received an email from Arne Simonson, City Clerk, City of Antioch stating that the publication of the Intention to Circulate Recall Petition was one day late.

I found this information out yesterday after a brief meeting with the City Clerk and Deputy City Clerk. I sent an email to the City Clerk and the City Attorney explaining that the delay in publication was solely due to the misinformation provided by that department, TWO days in a row. Due to this delay, the publication was delayed. I requested a meeting between the City Clerk and City Attorney and made myself available. To no avail, I was not invited to the meeting and a determination was made.

One can only suspect that the two consecutive day delays was intentional knowing the outcome would mean starting over. I state that because there is latitude on a local level. That information was confirmed with the Secretary of State. Instead, they have been determined that the original process has ended and IF we want to continue, we will have to start over from the beginning.

The only way to reverse this is to file suit, which I am currently unaware of an attorney that would be willing file suit on our behalf. If there is an attorney willing to assist us, I would welcome a meeting.

Personally, this is just more dirty politics and shows that they will stoop to any level and go to any extreme to stop this recall. Well, they may want to play dirty politics, I refuse to allow our movement to follow suit. We will take the high road, we will start over and we will seek the recall of Mayor Wade Harper.

I am sorry to give you this news on top of yet another shooting, but it is obviously even more important to RECALL WADE HARPER the sooner the better.

I will be contacting the original proponents for signatures and seeking additional if necessary.

Rich Buongiorno”


Harper reaches out to Buongiorno

On Thursday, November 6, Harper emailed Buongiorno asking him if he wanted to meet so the Mayor could tell Buongiorno about what he’s doing to address crime and homelessness, although the latter was not an issue in the recall effort. Buongiorno responded and agreed to meet with the mayor.

However, after Buongiorno was quoted in another news article posted online on Friday morning, November 7 that he would start the recall process again, Harper emailed him again and questioned if he was going to still move forward with the recall. When Buongiorno said yes, Harper changed the meeting to a phone call.

Buongiorno said that up until that point, Harper had never reached out to him, before.

Following is the email exchange between Harper and Buongiorno:

—–Original Message—–
From: Antioch Mayor Wade Harper [personal email address deleted for privacy]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 5:08 PM
To: [Buongiorno’s email address deleted]
Subject: Meeting Request

Hi Rich,

Are you open to meeting with me to discuss how we can come together
to resolve some of the issues in Antioch? I can also feel you in on
the things we are doing to address crime and homelessness in our city.

[Phone number deleted]

Sent from my iPhone


On Nov 6, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Rich [email address deleted] wrote:

Certainly, name it and I will try to accommodate

[Phone number deleted]


On Nov 7, 2014, at 7:47 AM, Antioch Mayor Wade Harper [email address deleted] wrote:

I would like to meeting g with you next Friday morning at Starbucks
after the chief makes his presentation about what we are doing about

Sent from my iPhone


—–Original Message—–
From: Antioch Mayor Wade Harper [email address deleted]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 7:51 AM
To: [Buongiorno’s email address deleted]
Subject: Re: Meeting Request

Rich I saw your article in East County Today. I have some concerns. It appears you still plan to
continue the intent to recall whether you hear the facts from me or not?

Sent from my iPhone

—–Original Message—–
From: Rich [email address deleted for privacy]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 11:55 AM
To: ‘Antioch Mayor Wade Harper’
Subject: RE: Meeting Request
Importance: High


That article isn’t “my” article, it’s ECT. However, I see no reason to not meet on Friday.



—–Original Message—–
From: Antioch Mayor Wade Harper [email address deleted for privacy]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 12:30 PM
To: [Rich Buongiorno’s email address deleted for privacy]
Subject: Re: Meeting Request

Have you already made your mind up that you are continuing the recall
process? Are you stating that Burkholder’s article is not accurate?

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 7, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Rich [email address deleted] wrote:


This action is not “me”. You might think of it as a multi-headed
snake and I happen to be the spokesperson for the rest of the body.
This is a democracy and is being performed under the direction of the majority in the group.


The majority of the group have made it quite clear they want to

proceed. However, there is a LOT of time consuming work to be done if in actuality it does
come to fruition.

So, punch line is who knows what will happen and what the consensus
will be come Thursday after the meeting.

From: Antioch Mayor Wade Harper [email address deleted]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 1:13 PM
To: [Buongiorno’s email address deleted]
Subject: Re: Meeting Request

Ok, let’s schedule a phone call after the city council meeting and go from there.

Sent from my iPhone


Harper responds

When reached for comment, Harper shared his thoughts.

I didn’t like his comment about the multi-headed snake. That’s kind of mean,” he said. “If he had any questions or comments and wanted to work out solutions…I sit down with people all the time.”

Asked if he’d reached out to Buongiorno before, when the recall started, Harper responded, “He’s said a lot of mean things, so no, I have not reached out to him, before. He made it clear…posted on Facebook that he thinks he gets under my skin. That’s not nice. My wife, kids and family members see those comments, so I think I blocked him from commenting on my Facebook page.”

Let the recall process take it’s course,” Harper stated. “I will respond in a professional manner and a timely manner, and I think I did, talking about the successes of the city under my leadership.”

Let’s spend some energy on making our city better,” he added.

Did he [Buongiorno] know how much it was going to cost the taxpayers, as much as $198,000 if the recall goes to the ballot, before he served me?” Harper asked. “Is there any gross negligence on my part as the Mayor? There is not. Don’t ignore the successes. Don’t ignore the facts.”

I’ll say this one last thing. I’m going to use my time, whether it’s working with problem youth or reducing crime in such a way, or getting groups together to make a difference.”

In response to Harper’s question about if he knew the cost of the recall, Buongiorno said, “No. But I did do an internet search of recalls in other cities similar to our size and estimated the cost to be about $80,000 to $109,000.”

The actual costs, according to the County Clerk’s office could range from $88,442 to $198,994.50 which is $2.00 to $4.50 per registered voter in Antioch, at the time the initial recall papers were served.

New recall papers are expected to be served on Harper in the near future, according to Buongiorno, so the costs could change.

However, it doesn’t have to happen at a council meeting.

The advantage to doing it that way is that it’s on tape and there’s no question of if he was served, when he was served, no talking back and forth, just ‘here you go,’” Buongiorno stated. “But the statement will be changed.”

the attachments to this post:

Letter to Mr_ Buongiorno dated 11-4-14
Letter to Mr_ Buongiorno dated 11-4-14

24 Comments to “Harper recall reboot: proponents fail to publish notice in time, blame misinformation, city delays”

  1. Dale Paris says:

    The truth shall prevail.

    Recall Wade Harper

  2. Karl fietzel says:

    Well, I am not surprised at all , but I will say this:

    This story stinks

  3. karl dietzel says:

    well, i am not surprised, just an other dirty political trick.

    • Rudy Goodard says:

      This is going to backfire on Harper. The new recall papers will contain new evidence of the incompetency of the leadership.

  4. Arne says:

    Had Mr. Buongiorno emailed me and attached the copy of the Notice of Intention prepared by the East County Times on October 22nd, I would have advised him that it only needed to include the exact wording of the Notice of Intent he served on the Mayor and did not require the signatures of those who signed the Notice of Intent. He could
    then have gone ahead and had it published well within the 10 days required by the Elections Code 11042.

    However, Mr. Buongiorno did not provide that to me until after 5 p.m. on October 28th, six days later. I responded to him 15 hours later at 8:33am on October 29th letting him know which of the two example of the Notice of Intent to use.

  5. Reginald Jamal Brown says:

    Harper seems way too sensitive for being an ex cop. Yes, Harper, people can say mean things, but that does not give you a reason to duck behind the covers. Pathetic.

    Interesting how he’s all of a sudden full of action once he was served with recall papers. It takes that much to get his lazy arse to move.

    I don’t care how much money it costs to recall you, getting someone who is serious about fighting crime will ultimately save lives in this city. $200k is chicken feed compared to another crime/shooting/murder spree.

  6. Rich says:

    It is almost amusing that an issue appears to be boiled down to some signatures. That was not the issue at all and you know it isn’t, it was the formatting of the actual publication, be it an “ad” or a “legal notice”.

    IF all that was necessary was to advise me of which kind it was, then the Deputy City Clerk should have never given two of us the runaround and referred us TWICE, two days in a row, to the State of California and the County Clerk, who referred us right back to the City Clerk. It appears there is some incompetency involved.

    Mr. Simonsen, if I was made aware by the Deputy City Clerk and/or the City Attorney that you were available I would have gone that route on 10/22/2014. Instead I was referred to two entities that have nothing to do with the local recall elections.

    The intention should and could have been publish far ahead of a 10 day limit had those two days of not been wasted on the phone.

    Additionally, when I was advised that I had exceeded the 10 day limit I was referred again, this time by yourself, to the Secretary of State and the FPPC. Both of which I did contact and both gave me the same answer – they have nothing to do with local recalls.

    I made a good faith effort on three occasions to follow your offices recommendations.

    In my opinion, if the City Clerk advises me to contact somebody, I expect the information to be correct. In my opinion, if the Deputy City Clerk advises me to contact somebody, I expect it to be correct.

    Out of three referrals, by the City Clerk and the Deputy City Clerk – NONE were accurate or correct.

    The notice of intention, in the format you chose was published and I went to your office with the necessary papers. As your Deputy stood there smiling as I was told I was late I saw no reason that the ONE day could not have been waived or allowed doe to several reasons – the primary one being the apparent incompetence exhibited by your office OR an overt act to stop the recall.

    I was under the opinion that the City Clerk and Deputy City Clerk positions were one of total neutrality – what I experienced was anything but neutrality.

    It’s not too late to do the right thing.

  7. Arne says:

    Elections Code 11042. (a) Within 10 days after filing of the answer to the notice of intention, or, if no answer is filed, within 10 days after the expiration of the seven-day period specified in Section 11023, the proponents shall file two blank copies of the petition with the elections official in his or her office during normal office hours as posted or, in the case of a recall of a state officer, with the
    Secretary of State, in his or her office during normal office hours
    as posted, who shall ascertain if the proposed form and wording of
    the petition meets the requirements of this chapter.
    (b) At the time of the filing of the two blank copies of the
    petition, the proponents shall also file proof of publication of the
    notice of intention, if the notice of intention was published, or an
    affidavit of posting of the notice of intention, if the notice of
    intention was posted. The elections official or, in the case of a
    recall of a state officer, the Secretary of State, shall, within 10
    days of receiving the blank copies of the petition, notify the
    proponents in writing of his or her finding.

    • eileen says:

      Arne, are you saying it isn’t true that the clerk’s office has latitude regarding timing and format, as Buongiorno states the Secretary of State states?
      And Arne, is the Deputy Clerk position elected? Your Deputy Clerk Christina Garcia is either incompetent or corrupt. And snotty. My god, Arne, first she gives Buongiorno the complete run-around and then stands there and SMILES when she announces he was “too late.”
      I can understand why you say the clerk’s office doesn’t give legal advice, that elections code thing you quote is pure gobbledygook.

      • Arne says:

        eileen, the Secretary of State’s office told Mr. Buongiorno that it was a local issue and not a state issue.

        You may not like the Elections Code, but the word “shall” does not provide wiggle room. This was explained to him when and given a copy of the Elections Code pertaining to the recall process he came into my office long before he served the Mayor with the Notice of Intent to Recall.

        • eileen says:

          The clerk’s office and city attorney came up with all kinds of complications that had nothing to do with the elections code you quoted. Garcia sent Buongiorno on a wild goose chase and Nerland vetoed everything she could to delay the process, the format, wording and publication outlet.

  8. Reginald Jamal Brown says:

    This is an excellent article. Excellent informational evidence.

  9. Julio says:

    Rich, there is a difference between neutrality and incompetence. I doubt either one of the staff members you mention had evil intent or wanted to shield Mr. Harper. That is where the incompetence comes in.

  10. Reginald Jamal Brown says:

    I think it was unethical how Harper tried to corner Rich when Harper asked if the article was “inaccurate”. That’s a dirty tactic police use on perps to try to get them to admit something that’s not their fault. Very sneaky Harper!

    Harper as an ex cop, you know that actions speak louder than words and your actions Along with the email conversation in this article shows how you would undermine the situation to your advantage.

    Antioch is better without you as Mayor.

  11. eileen says:

    Let’s not worry about the cost – Measure O passed. I will vote for recall with pleasure.

  12. eileen says:

    So Harper thinks Buongiorno’s comment about a multi-headed snake is “kind of mean?” Hey stupid mayor, it’s a metaphor! If you can’t take a metaphor…you’re kinda scary. Stupid scary.

  13. eileen says:

    Thank you Allen Payton,this is the paper I read to get the truth. Even though it isn’t “a paper of general circulation” according to Lynn Tracy Nerland,the incompetent, lazy, corrupt City Attorney enriched by feeding far too long at the Antioch public trough.
    Thank you for this Kafkaesque account of corruption, which we won’t find anywhere else.

  14. Wayne says:

    I’m sure glad that Reginald Jamal Brown has stepped up to provide the $200,000 for the recall election because it’s not “chicken feed” to me or the City of Antioch. Thank you.

    • Reginald Jamal Brown says:

      You’re welcome 😉

    • eileen says:

      Wayne, Antioch School Board Superintendent Donald Gill got $236,000 before the school board gave him a raise. Not sure how much his raise is. City Manager Steve Duran who lives in Dublin will get $230,000 after the City Council votes on staff pay raises this Thursday. Those two cost more than the recall. At least the recall is worth the money.

  15. Jani Fletcher says:

    The Truth Shall Prevail- RECALL MAYOR WADE HAPER!!!

  16. I’m not confident I can basically say where I got them. The folks I got them from (years ago) actually got into some legal problems so I do not really feel comfy mentioning them especially. Doesn’t matter although considering the fact that you can not get them any longer. I am thinking about cataloging the components and generating a components list for every single a single so that individuals can oder their personal “kits” from the on the web LEGO shop.

Leave a Reply