County Health Services using Remdesivir for COVID-19 patients; get glimpse of COVID-19 era libraries

By Daniel Borsuk

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors discussed possibly placing a half-cent sales tax measure to fund health and social services on the November ballot and approved hiring a pollster on a split vote. The tax measure would be in addition to a proposed Bay Area-wide half-cent sales tax measure for transportation expected to be on the November ballot, as well.

Approve Hiring Pollster for Half Cent Sales Tax Study

In response to the Contra Costa Needs Assessment from the county’s Sales Tax Working Group a countywide half-cent sales tax is being proposed “to shore up access to medical and behavioral health services, and bolster county safety-net programs.” BOS 052620 Contra Costa Needs Assessment

At least for now, it is uncertain if the board will move forward with a sales tax increase measure for the November ballot. Supervisors voted 4-1, with Board Chair Candace Andersen casting the lone, dissenting vote, to spend as much as $60,000 to hire a pollster to test whether voters would support one. But since the outbreak of COVID-19, public support for such a tax measure might have waned.

“We need further direction and getting results from a poll will help,” said Supervisor Karen Mitchoff. “Before COVID, support for a tax increase was optimistic, but with COVID it might be different.”

District 1 Supervisor John Gioia, a big booster of a sales tax increase, said it would cost $30,000 to $40,000 to poll 600,000 to 800,000 prospective voters. Mitchoff said a more realistic cost is $60,000.

Both Gioia and Mitchoff serve on the Potential Sales Tax Measure Ad Hoc Committee.

“Right now, is not the time to spend county funds for a poll,” said chair Andersen of Danville.

Extend Temporary Ban on Evictions and Residential Rent Increase Moratorium

With the supervisors’ month-old ordinance that imposed a temporary ban on evictions and a residential rent increase moratorium at the end of May, supervisors acted to extend the ordinance through July 15. Supervisors also imposed a one-year grace period and defined a commercial real property eligible for the ordinance “…as an independently owned and operated business that is not dominate in its field of operation, has its principal office in California, has 100 or fewer employees, and has average annual gross receipts of $15 million or less over the previous three years.”

Figuring the economy will not recover quickly to restore jobs, some speakers asked supervisors to extend the rent increase moratorium one year.

“Keep pace with Alameda County,” said Dick Offerman of Pleasant Hill. “See that no one is evicted in our county. Extend the moratorium one year.”

Mitchoff took time to warn landlords who are violating the county ordinance. “Landlords know about this ordinance. There are some bad actors who take advantage of people who speak English as a second language, this must stop,” she said.

County Health Uses Remdesivir for COVID-19 Patients

Contra Costa County Public Health Officer Dr. Christopher Farnitano informed supervisors that Contra Costa County Public Health has begun administering the anti-viral drug Remdesivir to COVID-19 patients. A total of 105 dosages were given last week, Dr. Farnitano said.

“The company that is making it (the drug) is giving this to the United States.” Dr. Farnitano said that the drug is “This drug is somewhat beneficial.”

Dr. Farnitano said there were as of Tuesday 13 COVID-19 patients in Contra Costa Medical Center, compared to 19 patients two weeks ago. Since the outbreak of the pandemic in March, 37 persons have died from COVID-19 in the county, four deaths occurred in the past week with one of the deaths in the person’s early 30’s, which is uncommon.

So far, the county is COVID-19 testing daily 95 people per 100,000 residents when the daily goal should be 200 people per 100,000 residents.

This drew Supervisor Mitchoff to question the testing.

“We’re about halfway there,” she said. “I did not want to test, but now I want to test in order to get our numbers up.”

Board Vice Chair Supervisor Diane Burgis of Brentwood asked why the COVID-19 test takers at county sites have to wait for results as long as 10 days when persons at three state sites get results within five days.

Contra Costa County Health Department Director Anna Roth said the average turnaround for COVID-19 results is three to five days, but it could be up to 10 days.

Get Glimpse of COVID-19 Era Libraries

took a glimpse of what the COVID-19 era might look like on Tuesday visualizing the 26 public libraries could offer some type of front door service for patrons to pick up checked out books in bags and when libraries do open doors possibly on June 15 seating capacity will be reduced 20 percent at each location right when outdoor temperatures are peaking above 100 degrees and libraries often serve as cooling centers for the public.

Supervisors unanimously approved the Contra Costa County Library Pandemic Preparedness Plan presented by County Librarian Melinda Cervantes that promotes hygiene, social distancing, and reduced seating. BOS 052620 CCCL Pandemic Preparedness Plan Draft Final

“We plan to begin service as soon as possible,” Cervantes told supervisors during the teleconferenced board meeting.

During the presentation, supervisors learned 36 library accounting positions might be eliminated because of COVID-19 related revenue losses. The potential loss of the library jobs will undermine library book purchasing.

“We need to get through the state budget,” responded county administrator David Twa, who said the 36 library accounting jobs are “potential job layoffs” and are subject to the meet and confer process. The state budget will be unveiled in mid-June.

Approve Purchase of DA’s Office Mobile Forensic Vehicle

In other action, the supervisors approved the District Attorney’s Office request to execute an agreement with the City of San Jose for the expenditure of up to $200,000 to procure a mobile forensic vehicle for the Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The vehicle is expected to cost $48,285.

By Allen Payton

During their Wednesday board meeting, the Antioch School District Trustees voted 3-2 to eliminate almost 29 classified staff positions for the 2020-21 school year in response to the proposed budget cuts by Governor Newsom. AUSD Reduction in Classified Service Resolution 05-27-20

According to the district staff report, “the California Education Code requires that classified employees whose positions will be eliminated or reduced due to lack of work or lack of funds receive at least 60 days written notice prior to the date on which their position reduction and/or layoff becomes effective. Statute also requires that classified employees whose positions are categorically-funded receive notification of layoff on or before April 29 of the calendar year when their positions will end due to the expiration of funding.”

“We’ve tried our best…at keeping as many positions as possible,” said Deputy Superintendent Jessica Romeo. “I will not pretend a different position…is not hard on employees. But we are doing our best to see what other positions we have in the district to keep as many employees as possible. All of these individuals would have the right to substitute…to keep some income.”

Board President Diane Gibson-Gray read public comments, which included those from district teachers and staff.

Amy Gonzales wrote, “As one of the 28.788 jobs being put up for elimination, I understand…cuts must come. I think that the pandemic has shown food workers are essential in our community. I think students will say the library will be high on their list. As a high school registrar, I don’t just enroll new students.” She then provided a long list of other tasks she fulfills. “Enrolling new students only takes up 5% of my job.”

Sheila Driscoll wrote, “It seems like every time the budget gets cut classified takes the brunt of the cuts. Instructional aids are important to each school. I’m willing to hold off on pay raises if it means my fellow workers keep their jobs. It’s too early to be laying people off. We have to work together.”

Teacher Maureen Hatfield wrote, “I am very concerned with layoffs of library staff at the elementary level. With the layoffs…our ability to address those needs (of reading) will be hampered. Please do not take this valuable resource away from our children.”

Staff member Lisa Perry wrote, opposing the elimination of the homeless education liaison. “This is a federally mandated position, so the district will have to find someone else to take on these duties. Homelessness and instability will increase. A high level of financial and emotional support is necessary for these students. This position is completely funded with Title 1 funds from the federal government.”

Julie Cross wrote about her concerns with the cuts to library staff. “Society can’t afford to lose them.”

Jennifer Zamora wrote, “The closing of elementary libraries is one place that shouldn’t be cut.”

Madeline Crooks wrote concerning the cuts to library tech staff and the homeless liaison position. “I truly hope this district can find a way to keep these positions.”

“Why cut so many classified staff who are needed to run our district so much?” wrote someone who chose to be anonymous.

An Antioch High School staff member, Samantha Lipscomb wrote, “When we cut our vital registrars…who has helped me for countless years is frightening. In addition, they are cutting our college and career coordinator. Do what is right for the kids. A smile and helpful heart cannot be replaced by a computer.”

Jenna Wesenhagen, an Antioch High School employee wrote about classified staff, “They are too important to eliminate,” then provided a long list of tasks they perform.

Leslie Scudero wrote, “Essential meaning absolutely necessary. This year cuts the remaining five positions” in the elementary school libraries.

She then suggested the district “eliminate all outside vendors and conferences. We have highly educated staff that can squeak by. Cut the services of Strategic Threat Management, you’re not getting your money’s worth. We have site safety staff who can do the job. I for one would gladly give up a week or two from my work year to save the classified employees. Ask if the jobs…you’re cutting are essential.”

Superintendent Stephanie Anello then read more public comments.

Jessica Kelp wrote, “When I say we, I mean everyone on the high school campus,” then mentioned the difficulty of students having to travel off campus to get transcripts with the elimination of registrars.

Another commenter wrote “If we keep cutting positions, we will have nothing to run our schools. We cannot demand the most while giving the least. Teachers respect the classified staff you are proposing cutting, this evening.”

Jeff Adkins a staff member, wrote, “How does moving someone to the central office more efficient than leaving them on site

Christy Hansen, an elementary teacher, called cutting elementary library positions “short sighted.”

Kimball Elementary teacher Kenneth Kent referring to the COVID-19 wrote, “I worry layoffs in classified staff will make sanitizing impossible” among other concerns with the staff cuts.

Then the board took up the matter.

Trustee Ellie Householder spoke first. “I hear you all very loud and clear. I want to thank the staff for the hard work in developing this recommendation. But it is a recommendation. I don’t see a reason why we have to vote on this, tonight. My preference would be to hold off maybe a week, a couple of days…to sit down and have a study session…so we can say we have no other options. These are unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures. With that I am going to be voting to reject this recommendation. Let’s pump the breaks for a minute. We should triple and quadruple check.”

Trustee Crystal Sawyer-White then shared her thoughts.

“I think that we should, I’m supporting Trustee Ellie Householder as a parent and teacher,” she said, then spoke of going line by line through the proposed cuts, and then teacher safety.

Gibson-Gray then pointed out that Sawyer-White was off topic and asked her to only discuss the staff cuts.

“Safety is the key before we consider the next school year,” Sawyer-White stated. “This is a pandemic and health is the issue.”

Trustee Mary Rocha said, “As a former classified (employee), I feel badly having to make a decision like this. There’s a requirement…we have to take action on. It’s not just going to be classified that will take a brunt.”

Gibson-Gray spoke next saying, “We have to have a qualified budget to stay out of…receivership. We have to make these cuts tonight. This is the layoff notice…many times we’re able to find money by July 1st. I’m confident…this has gone through a thought process. This needs to be done. If anything changes the cuts will be rescinded if there are the funds.”

Rocha then made the motion to approve the resolution eliminating the positions and Trustee Gary Hack seconded it.

“I just wanted to add, tonight isn’t the deadline to make this decision. We do have a little bit of time to make this decision,” Householder reiterated. “I would hope the process would be more transparent. When I hear…staff and the community doesn’t know how this process happened. I want the community to know we’ve done everything to save these people’s jobs. Even though you’ve been in this position, before this is fundamentally different.”

“I’m confident that any position that’s unfilled and not needed for the next school year was eliminated,” said Gibson-Gray. “I would recommend you have a conversation with the superintendent. I am very reflective that these are people. This is how it’s done. It’s a process. By the end of July…if we’re able to save 14 people, then 14 can stay.”

“I have to push back a bit. It’s not fair to say this is a process,” Householder said. “Our board, whose essential existence is that we approve or deny a budge recommendation. We approve this final budget…and we can wait. It’s our decision. It’s not staff. We are the board that approves the budget. I think it’s unfair you characterize it like that.”

“And I think it’s unfair you characterized it like that,” Gibson-Gray shot back.

“We must have a budget by Friday,” Romeo explained. “If you look at a dollar amount in this resolution it does not have all the budget reductions for next year. But, I will continue to do that…to continue to look for ways to…keep as many positions as possible. We do have to follow legal requirements…with whatever contracts we have.”

Sawyer-White then said, “I would like to ask legal counsel. If we could have a closed session and have someone who is an attorney with respect to COVID shelter-in-place. This is a serious matter. I’ve seen several emails. These are people.”

“We have to have a budget that is public as of next Friday” June 5th “that will come before the board on June 10th. Then on June 24th it will be up for adoption by the board and this process has been published,” Romeo explained.

“It’s hard. Some of them are family members,” said Rocha.

“I would like to convey to Trustee Rocha that this can be postponed,” Sawyer-White said.

“It can’t be postponed…June 5th,” Rocha could be heard saying within range of her microphone.

“I can see what’s going on here. Parents are contacting me. They’re depressed. Please postpone this,” Sawyer-White appealed.

“I spent 15 years on a bargaining team. I’ve been here and done that so many times and it’s painful” Hack said. “But there’s rules and there’s laws that have to be adhered to in a timely manner. We had a tentative agreement back in February then all heck happened. But there’s still a timeline. The state won’t let us put it off.”

The motion to approve the cuts then passed on a 3-2 vote with Gibson-Gray, Rocha and Hack voting in favor, and Sawyer-White and Householder voting against.

Following are the positions listed in the adopted resolution that were eliminated for the 2020-21 school year:

Position                                                                                               Full-Time Equivalent

CURRICULUM COORDINATOR                                                               1.000

DISTRICT ATTENDENDANCE LIAISON-BILINGUAL                         1.000

INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANT                                                                 6.192

INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANT, BILINGUAL                                         1.752

LIBRARY MEDIA TECHNICIAN I                                                            5.000

OFFICE ASSISTANT – CLASSIFIED HUMAN RESOURCES                1.000

PRINT SHOP RECORDS AND INFORMATION TECHNICIAN             1.000

REGISTRAR I                                                                                               4.406

REGISTRAR II                                                                                              3.000

REGISTRAR III                                                                                            2.000

STUDENT FIELD ASSISTANT                                                                   1.000

STUDENT MONITOR                                                                                  0.438

WAREHOUSE WORKER DRIVER                                                            1.000

Total FTE                                                                                                        28.788

Sacramento – Earlier today, Wednesday, May 27, 2020, the Assembly Transportation Committee Chaired by Assemblymember Jim Frazier (D-Fairfield) held an oversight hearing on the California High Speed Rail Authority’s (HSRA) 2020 Draft Business Plan. The HSRA is required to adopt and submit a final business plan to the Legislature on May 1st every two years that details funding, financing and ridership estimates for the entire project.

Since the Legislature first envisioned high-speed rail in the state in 1996 and residents first voted on Prop 1A in 2008 to help fund the project, the general idea for how the state would accomplish this has largely remained the same. The actual business plan authored by the Authority however has been riddled with issues and come under increased scrutiny from the Legislature as costs and deadlines have ballooned while reports of dysfunction and organizational chaos have become widespread.

“Once again, it seems the High-Speed Rail Authority has released in the 2020 Draft Business Plan a proposal for its future that it can’t afford and that won’t deliver what is promised. Every version of the Business Plan has increased costs and reduced scope and no longer resembles the vision promised in the 2008 ballot measure’’, said Assemblymember Frazier. “Despite efforts by myself and some of my colleagues, the Authority continues to propose electrifying a segment of a train line in the Central Valley that will add billions of dollars to the project and provide little or no benefit.”

“I believe there is a way to rescue this project from failure, but I think it requires honest evaluation and true cost-benefit analysis, neither of which the Authority has ever been able to provide”, continued Frazier. “Every iteration of the business plan comes with new promises without results. It is going to take a lot of explanation for me to believe that, this time, the Authority’s cost and ridership estimates are legitimate, and this is something the state should continue to invest in.”

Development of high-speed rail in California began more than 20 years ago.  SB 1420 (Kopp), Chapter 796, Statutes of 1996, created HSRA to direct development and implementation of intercity high-speed rail service that would be fully coordinated with other public transportation services.

For more information on this legislation or to learn more about Assemblymember Frazier, please visit his website.

Assemblymember Frazier represents the 11th Assembly District, which includes the communities of Antioch, Bethel Island, Birds Landing, Brentwood, Byron, Collinsville, Discovery Bay, Fairfield, Isleton, Knightsen, Locke, Oakley, Pittsburg (partial), Rio Vista, Suisun City, Travis AFB, Vacaville and Walnut Grove.

By Antioch Police Department

There’s a saying in police work – There’s no such thing as a “routine” traffic stop. Case and point yesterday, Tuesday, May 26, 2020, at about 4:50 pm, an officer patrolling Lone Tree Way and Mokelumne Drive spotted a Toyota Camry with illegal tint on the front windows. The officer stopped the vehicle and learned the driver was on probation with a court-ordered condition allowing search by an officer for any reason. The officer searched the vehicle and found a gun underneath the seat. After checking the serial number, he learned the gun had been reported stolen from a burglary in Grants Pass, Oregon. The driver was sent to the County Jail for possession of the stolen gun plus probation violation and his vehicle was impounded.

As you have maybe seen from our previous posts, APD is working hard to take illegally possessed firearms from the wrong hands before they can be used to cause harm. One of the ways we do this is by conducting probation compliance checks on individuals we contact during the course of our day. These checks sometimes result in illegally possessed weapons, drugs, or other contraband.

If you are contacted during a traffic stop, please keep in mind that our officers are trained to never treat these encounters as “routine,” and to always be aware of hidden dangers. What can you do when you’re stopped?

1. Slow down and pull to the right when it is safe to do so.
2. Turn the motor off and do not exit your vehicle unless specifically asked to do so.
3. Roll down all of the windows and turn on the interior light at night.
4. Keep your hands on the steering wheel and avoid digging around for papers or your license until requested.

We get being pulled over can be stressful but, taking these steps will surely be appreciated by the officer, and help things run smoother.

#AntiochPD  #AntiochStrong

Requires all-ability playground, option for community garden if residents want it

By Allen Payton

During their regular meeting on Tuesday night, May 26, 2020 the Antioch City Council unanimously approved changes to the designs and sizes for the homes in the new home subdivision in Sand Creek, but spent most of their discussion ensuring an all-abilities playground in the park and a possible community garden, should the future homeowners want it.

The city had high hopes for a senior housing community by Century Communities in the Sand Creek area. “Unfortunately, that project did not sell as well as we thought it would,” said City Manager Ron Bernal.

Jose Cortez, Associate Planner in the Community Development Department provided the staff presentation.

“The 10 new designs fit on the existing lot sizes,” he said. “Sizes range from 1,500 square feet to 2,700 square feet. Changes…should not have any adverse effects to what was approved for size.”

The Planning Commission approved the changes and staff recommended the council adopt the changes.

No member of the public spoke on the matter, not even the developer who, as the proponent

“In the removing of certain items from the active adult community…I would ask the community garden be put back in. That’s unique,” said Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock. “The park, I believe all parks built in the city, should be all abilities. Wheelchair can get in there. But we should not allow parks where children cannot get in there.”

A representative from Cielo was on the phone, named, Jeff Inabmnit, representing Century Communities.

“These changes will make a real positive impact on the project,” he said. “The project is focused on the family buyer profile.”

“A private garden is for high-density projects,” Inabmnit said. “The homes have 21-foot back yards which should be adequate. If a community garden isn’t supported, it becomes an eyesore.”

Thorpe then said, “Aren’t all we really doing tonight is looking at home size and designs?”

“Any modifications to the parks and recreation amenities go back to the Planning Commission,” said City Planner Alexis Morris. “Any changes to the homes go to the council.”

Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts wanted the developer to set keep the community garden that was in the development’s originally approved plans.

“As much as I like a community garden, I’d leave that up to the residents, if the HOA wants that,” Councilwoman Monica Wilson said. “If they don’t want it, it becomes an eyesore.”

Councilman Lamar Thorpe then made the motion to approve the modifications to the home designs and sizes.

“You’re talking about 5,000 square foot lots or less,” Ogorchock pointed out.

“Just like my community,” interjected Wilson.

Ogorchock continued to argue in favor of the community garden and pushing for an all-ability park for the children.

Thorpe then said, “On the community garden side, this is going to return to staff. Volunteers don’t suffice. I’m not for this community garden idea. This was going to be a retirement community of 55 plus.”

“In terms of it being an all-abilities park you guys are still open to that,” he asked.

“We’ve added the play equipment recommended by the Parks and Recreation Department, which is an acceptable structure with paths to get to it,” Iabmnit responded.

“I would still like to see you go ahead with the waterline in case the homeowners’ association would like to do the community garden, if you’re amenable to that,” Motts said.

“Yeah. I’m fine with that,” Inabmnit said.

“Jeff has said they will build the pipe…if the people want it they want it,” Thorpe said. But he and Wilson accepted the amendment to their motion.

They then also added language to the motion to ensure the park was all-abilities.

The council then voted unanimously to approve the motion and changes to the design and sizes of the homes.

Councilmembers concerned about adding more financial burdens on residents during COVID-19 shelter-in-place

By Allen Payton

During their meeting Tuesday night, May 26, 2020 the Antioch City Council approved changes to the size and design of homes in the Cielo development of Century Communities and approved some fee increases but not others in the Master Fee Schedule on splits vote, with Councilman Lamar Thorpe voting against all of the increases. Master Fee Schedule ACC052620

“I don’t think this is the time to increase fees during the COVID crisis. So, I won’t be voting to increase any of them,” Thorpe said

“I would not be in favor of any park and rec fee increases to the community, right now,” said Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts. “I think they would hit our senior citizens too hard.”

“Any events higher than 10…do require security,” said Nancy Kaiser responding to concerns from Councilwoman Monica Wilson. “We’ve had adults, teens bringing in alcohol and illegal

“Now during this time of COVID, parents, their salaries have been cut in half…I don’t want to add an additional burden on them, and I think they need to be rethought,” said Wilson.

“The revenue we have lost this year, we’ve lost. But the deposits are held in trust and the events have been postponed until next year,” Kaiser responded.

“I think we should postpone all of this. I don’t think this looks good, at this time,” Thorpe stated. “I think it looks contrary to what our positions have been in the past…as it relates to the economic burden people are facing. I think we postpone this until a later date. I think we look hypocritical doing things for one group, renters…and then raise fees on another group.”

“We are not under any time constraints. We have a strong budget reserve. A couple dollars here and a couple dollars there is not going to break the bank,” he added.

“The fees we’re looking adjusted go through June 30,” said City Manager Ron Bernal.

“The spay and neuter rates are a direct cost to our veterinarian. That would be one of the fees we could implement, now so we can continue to do spay and neuter services for our community,” he requested.

The council majority of Motts, Thorpe and Wilson voted against increasing Community Development, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation fees.

But they approved all the other fee increases on 4-1 votes with just Thorpe voting against.

Only one of part of the Master Fee Schedule, which was changes to the language for the Parks and Recreation Department fees, passed on a 5-0 vote.

“We will revisit after the declared emergency,” Motts added.

The changes will go into effect on July 1st.

Some churches to participate in civil disobedience this Sunday and open for services.

“Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights”… “the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship” – 5/19/20 US DOJ letter to Gov. Newsom.

By Allen Payton

Yesterday, Monday, May 25, 2020 – Memorial Day, the day we honor and commemorate those who died for our freedoms, some of which are seriously limited, right now – California Governor Gavin Newsom issued guidelines for reopening places of worship. At first, I was hopeful that he was doing something good in response to President Trump’s directive to all the governors and the directive to California from U.S. Attorney General William Barr and the Department of Justice, last week.

But the guidelines don’t really allow most places of worship to reopen. Why? Because they’re too restrictive, limiting attendance to just 25% of building capacity or 100 people whichever is less. Plus, Newsom is leaving it up to each unelected county health officer to approve of the guidelines or not.

Now, it’s worse because they’re allowing more and more businesses to reopen – which is great – but not the churches. Our officials already considered all the vice serving businesses, including all the locations of the nation’s top abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, liquor stores, and marijuana dispensaries essential. But not the churches or other places of worship. And as of today, the governor said barber shops and hair salons can reopen.

Which part of “shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise” of religion and the other First Amendment right of freedom of peaceful assembly, don’t our officials get?

Civil Disobedience

Following in the footsteps of the black Christian ministers who led the efforts during the civil rights movement, it appears some churches will be participating in some civil disobedience with the ministers leading the effort for their rights, when they hold services this next Sunday, May 31st in defiance of state and local orders. Those in attendance will probably only be issued citations and the maximum fine is $1,000, which they can collectively fight. Plus, with $0 bail, right now none of them will go to jail. Most likely only the ministers will be cited and fined. But who knows? The Lord does and we will see just how far the government officials will take this and just how much they want to continue this fight.

Time to Elect New Leaders

It’s definitely time we elected only those who agree that places of worship are essential, not only to those who attend, but society as a whole, and will actually uphold their oaths of office, in which they swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Event the CDC recognized that in the statement for its Interim Guidance for Communities of Faith, unlike our governor in the statement included with his guidelines. The CDC wrote, “Millions of Americans embrace worship as an essential part of life. In addition, we note that while many types of gatherings are important for civic and economic well-being, religious worship has particularly profound significance to communities and individuals, including as a right protected by the First Amendment. State and local authorities are reminded to take this vital right into account when establishing their own re-opening plans.”

What did the governor include in the statement about his guidelines? Just more warnings about how public gatherings can cause more deaths. That statement includes, “There have been multiple outbreaks in a range of workplaces, indicating that workers are at risk of acquiring or transmitting COVID-19 infection. Examples of these workplaces include places of worship, long-term care facilities, prisons, food production, warehouses, meat processing plants, and grocery stores.”

“Further, it is strongly recommended that places of worship continue to facilitate remote services and other related activities for those who are vulnerable to COVID19 including older adults and those with co-morbidities. Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing and group recitation negate the risk-reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing,” Newsom’s statement continues.

Nothing about our First Amendment rights which should be protected or that corporate worship or even churches being essential to at least some Californians or society as a whole.

Legal Efforts

We also need to support the legal efforts of those suing the state and governor to get the courts to force him to allow the churches to reopen. One way you can do that is by supporting the Center for American Liberty, based in San Francisco and led by my friend, attorney Harmeet Dhillon and her fellow attorney, Mark Meuser, a former Contra Costa resident. Read about their cases and make a contribution, here – https://libertycenter.org/pf/covid-19-litigation/.

Another lawsuit by churches in California against Newsom and the state, which was joined by Dhillon, lost last week at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 decision of a three-judge panel. Not surprising the judges who voted with the governor were appointed by Clinton and Obama, and the one judge that voted with the churches was appointed by Trump.

“These are emergency appeals,” Dhillon explained on Monday. “We filed for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court” in the recent case before the 9th Circuit.

“The DOJ sent a letter to the governor that his policies were discriminatory against churches,” she continued. “Today’s guidelines are still limiting. They’re totally arbitrary. There is no limit of 100 people for any retail establishment. Retail has a 50% capacity limit for some and none for others.”

“To tell people how they can worship, this is more unconstitutional and very problematic,” Dhillon added.

DOJ Letter to Newsom

In the DOJ letter to Newsom about “several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship” due to the governor’s stay-at-home order, as well as “documents relating to the California Reopening Plan” it states “Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.” USDOJ 5.19.20 Ltr. to Hon. Gavin Newson

“Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” the letter continues.

“Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3” of Newsom’s reopening plan, the letter explains. “However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified” in the decision of another case “in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship.”

“Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest…” the letter states.

It then refers to the recent case before the 9th Circuit and states, “Other decisions around the country…make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done.”

“We believe…that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.”

An email has been sent to the DOJ asking for their views on Newsom’s guidelines and if they comply with the May 19th letter. (Please check back later for updates to this column.)

Time for Action

It’s time for action and to stop living in fear, my friends. The governor’s guidelines are too restrictive and continue to clearly violate our God-given – the meaning of “unalienable” – and constitutionally protected rights of both freedom of religion and assembly. Until Newsom complies with the directives from the federal government, churches should feel free to reopen within the guidelines applied to nonreligious activities and businesses.

As the DOJ letter states, “Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines.” Local churches can do the same. We shall see if any actions are taken against the ministers and those who attend this Sunday’s services.

 

DOJ Letter to Governor Newsom

               U.S. Department of Justice 

Civil Rights Division

 

 

________________________________________________________________________________

 

Office of the Assistant Attorney General                                                                   Washington, D.C. 20530

May 19, 2020

 

The Honorable Gavin Newsom

Governor of California

1303 10th Street, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

 

Dear Governor Newsom:

We are writing to you to raise several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship in Executive Orders N-33-20 and N-60-20 and documents relating to the California Reopening Plan.

Of course, we recognize the duty that you have to protect the health and safety of Californians in the face of a pandemic that is unprecedented in our lifetimes. You and other leaders around the country are called on to balance multiple competing interests and evaluate the constantly changing information available to you about COVID-19, and make your best judgment on courses of action.

Attorney General William P. Barr recently issued a statement on Religious Practice and Social Distancing, in conjunction with a Mississippi case in which the Department of Justice participated regarding restrictions on worship. In the statement, the Attorney General emphasized the need to practice social distancing to control the spread of COVID-19. He also noted that temporary restrictions that would be unacceptable in normal circumstances may be justified. But, “even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers. Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity.” Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Laws that are not both neutral toward religion and generally applicable are invalid unless the government can prove that they further a compelling interest and are pursued through the least restrictive means possible. Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest, absent the most compelling reasons.

Executive Order N-33-20 (March 19, 2020) ordered Californians to remain at home except to engage in authorized necessary activities as laid out by the Public Health Officer at the time and as modified going forward. The Public Health Officer’s April 28 “essential workforce” list does not appear to treat religious activities and comparable nonreligious activities the same.

The list includes “faith-based services” but only if “provided through streaming or other technologies.” In-person religious services are thus apparently prohibited even if they adhere to social distancing standards.

The list of nonreligious workers who are not so restricted by the Executive Order and essential workforce list when telework “is not practical” is expansive. For example, the list includes “Workers supporting the entertainment industries, studios, and other related establishments, provided they follow covid-19 public health guidance around social distancing.” Likewise, “workers supporting ecommerce” are included as essential, regardless of whether the product they are selling and shipping are life-preserving products or not. This facially discriminates against religious exercise. California has not shown why interactions in offices and studios of the entertainment industry, and in-person operations to facilitate nonessential ecommerce, are included on the list as being allowed with social distancing where telework is not practical, while gatherings with social distancing for purposes of religious worship are forbidden, regardless of whether remote worship is practical or not.

Even more pronounced unequal treatment of faith communities is evident in California’s Reopening Plan, as set forth in Executive Order N-60-20 (May 4, 2020), and in the documents the California Department of Public Health produced pursuant to it, including the “Resilience Roadmap” (https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap/) and “County Variance Attestations” (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Local-Variance-Attestations.aspx). Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3. However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets, and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified in the Lukumi decision in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship. While it is true that social distancing requirements applied to places of worship may inevitably result in much smaller congregations than some faith groups would like, in our experience with other controversies around the country, many places of worship are quite content to operate at 15-25% of capacity in a way that allows for social distancing between family groups.

The Department of Justice does not seek to dictate how States such as California determine what degree of activity and personal interaction should be allowed to protect the safety of their citizens. However, we are charged with upholding the Constitution and federal statutory protections for civil rights. Whichever level of restrictions you adopt, these civil rights protections mandate equal treatment of persons and activities of a secular and religious nature.

We recognize that three U.S. District Courts have denied Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO’s) sought by plaintiffs against Executive Order N-33-20, Abiding Place Ministries v. Wooten, No. 3:20-cv-00683 (S.D. Cal. April 10, 2020) (no written opinion); Gish v. Newsom, No. 5:20-CV-755 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020); Cross Culture Christian Ctr. v. Newsom, No. 2:20-CV-00832 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2020), and one denied a TRO against the Reopening Plan, which is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 3:20-cv-865 (S.D. Cal. May 15, 2020) (oral transcript ruling). These TRO decisions do not justify California’s actions. The Abiding Place, Gish, and Cross Culture TRO decisions do not address the Stage 2 reopening, and South Bay United Pentecostal does not describe why worship services can be distinguished from schools, restaurants, factories or other places Stage 2 permits people to come together. Other decisions around the country have followed Lukumi to make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done. See, e.g., Robert v. Neace, No. 20-5465 (6th Cir. May 11, 2020).

Religion and religious worship continue to be central to the lives of millions of Americans. This is true now more than ever. Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines. We believe, for the reasons outlined above, that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you wish to discuss further, please contact United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California McGregor Scott at

(916) 554-2730 or mcgregor.scott@usdoj.gov.

Sincerely,

           Eric S. Dreiband

                            Assistant Attorney General

               Civil Rights Division

 

McGregor W. Scott

United States Attorney

Eastern District of California

 

Nicola T. Hanna

United States Attorney

Central District of California

 

David L. Anderson

United States Attorney

Northern District of California

 

Robert S. Brewer

United States Attorney

Southern District of California

 

cc: The Honorable Xavier Becerra

Attorney General of California

By Antioch Police Department

We are all familiar with the term “porch pirates” by now, unfortunately, as people who steal delivered packages off of other people’s porches. Generally, we see an uptick in these types of incidents around the holidays as several people will shop online for their gifts. In today’s shelter in place environment, several members of our community have also increased their online shopping while retail shopping is suspended.

On Monday, May 25, 2020, some would be “porch pirates” met their match when the ever-diligent citizens of Antioch continued to show they’re looking out for each other. This afternoon, we received several calls in the southeast end of town of a male subject stealing items off of unsuspecting residents’ porches. While officers circulated the area, they were able to locate the vehicle and two suspects responsible!

Several items of stolen property and possible stolen mail were found and much of the property will be returned to the rightful owners. For their troubles, these two will be spending the rest of their holiday at county jail on theft, conspiracy and possession of stolen property charges. As always if you see something, say something!!! Thank you to all of the callers that helped us get this case resolved today!