“…the employees of the AUSD have No Confidence in Ellie Householder’s ability to lead the Antioch Unified School District.”

Separate online petition started to remove her from school board

By Allen Payton

The Antioch Unified School District staff, including teachers, classified and management employees, announced Wednesday night, that 97.5% approved a Vote of No Confidence in Antioch School Board President Ellie Householder. A total of 669 staff members voted in favor, only 15 district employees voted no and three voted to abstain.

The three groups are the Antioch Education Association (AEA) representing the teachers, California School Employees Association Antioch Chapter 85 (CSEA) and the Antioch Management Association (AMA), representing the principals and district leadership. The A A members voted 441-8-0, the CS A members voted 213-6-2 and the AMA members voted 45-1-1.

The AEA announced on their Facebook page, Wednesday night, Sept. 22, “The employees of the Antioch Unified School District have overwhelmingly voted in support of a Vote of No Confidence in School Board President Ellie Householder.”

Also on Wed. night, on the CSEA’s Facebook page, the AEA’s post was reposted with the comment, “Resounding vote of ‘no confidence’ in Ellie Householder.”

In addition, during public comments of the school board regular meeting, representatives of the three employ groups issued the following statement:

“A vote of no confidence is defined as ‘a formal vote by which people indicate that they do not support a leader, government, etc.

In an electronic secret ballot election held from September 18-22, 2021, 97.5% percent of votes cast were in support of a Vote of No Confidence in Ellie Householder as the President of the AUSD School Board. Only 15 votes were cast in opposition, representing only 0.02% of the total ballots cast. The breakdown of votes is as follows: 98.2% of certificated staff (AEA), 97.8% of management staff (AMA), and 97.3% of classified staff (CSEA) stated their lack of confidence in the Board President.

The following violations of Roberts Rules of Order and the Brown Act have occurred at board meetings presided by President Ellie Householder:

• Allowing a substitute motion to go through on a non-debatable motion such as “motion to table”
• Efforts to limit or eliminate public comment by removing agenda items without consensus of the board
• Efforts to shorten public comment by reducing the time limit allowed after comments had been submitted
• Stopping public comments midstream when she felt it wasn’t appropriate or directly related to the agenda item
• Requesting staff to use personal judgement on which public comments should be entered into public record and which should not
• Abusing her presidential authority by not recognizing staff and board members’ requests to speak or provide input during a public meeting
• Asserting that the president must not only collaborate on, but approve, the board agenda. Ed. Code and Board Policy do not require the board president’s approval, just collaboration on the development
• Abusing her authority by calling and/or adding agenda items at special meetings, that were neither urgent, nor necessary
• Violating the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), by publicly posting unauthorized video of students without permission

For all of these reasons, the employees of the AUSD have No Confidence in Ellie Householder’s ability to lead the Antioch Unified School District.

Valorie Luke, President, Antioch Education Association

Scott Bergerhouse, President, Antioch Management Association

Josh Isenbarger, President, California School Employees Association, Chapter 85”

————–

Online Petition Launched to Remove Householder from School Board

In addition, Change.org petition was started by Emily Smith with the title, “Remove Ellie Householder from the District Board”. As of Thursday afternoon, Sept. 23 it had garnered 144 signatures.

It includes the message, “As we have watched multiple ‘emergency’ meetings set up by Ellie Householder, it has become evident that she is not fit for her position. She has unilaterally removed the agenda item involving her removal, TWICE! She has violated The Brown Act and does not follow Roberts Rules unless it is convenient for her argument.  Ellie has turned out district into a laughing stock [sic] and has silenced the other trustees on the board. These are just a few examples of why Ellie Householder is not fit to be the board president. She is refusing to allow the Board to act as a board, silencing them and refusing to recognize them. These are all elected officials. She has been abusing her power, and refuses to listen to other trustees. Let your opinion be heard and let the district know the community wants Ellie Householder out!”

Efforts to reach Householder for comment on both the vote and petition were unsuccessful prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

 

Place food orders, here: https://most-holy-rosary—mhrc-filipino-american-club.square.site/

District’s attorney who said, “I wasn’t at the meeting” argues in support, citing Robert’s Rules of Order

“I don’t want just you, making that decision” – Trustee Rocha, regarding removing the item from the agenda

Also, unilaterally removes the one item from closed session

Board agrees to hire a parliamentarian for meetings – even though Householder, as Antioch City Clerk serves as the council’s parliamentarian

Rocha calls for censuring Householder

School district staff announce 97.5% vote of no confidence in Householder

“This is uncomfortable” – VP Lewis

By Allen Payton

During the Antioch School Board meeting Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2021, before the regular open session began, a closed session was to be held to discuss one item entitled, “Student Discipline or Other Confidential Student Matter: Interdistrict Transfer Permit”. However, Board President Ellie Householder unilaterally removed it from the agenda, cancelling the closed session, which according to the agenda was scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. (See meeting agenda)

“There was a request that this item be pulled for tonight,” Householder explained. “So, I’m going to pull it and we are going to have a separate meeting to discuss that matter. So, we won’t have any items for closed session.”

“I did just want to have it on the record that I did not consult with the superintendent in the development of this agenda,” she continued. “So, a way that we can, you know, continue tonight, and discuss everything on this agenda, I just want to get a consensus from my colleagues, are we OK with this agenda. Because that is in essence what is done by the board president, before the meeting,

All four other trustees agreed to the agenda – which included item 12B, the vote on Householder’s removal as board president.

“Apologies for this false start, here,” Householder said.

“I believe you’re going to have to have a motion and a second in order to remove that from the, just so it’s clean, the closed session item,” Superintendent Stephanie Anello.

“I don’t have to,” Householder responded. So, if there is a motion, that’s fine. But I was requested by the individual that this is regarding to have this item removed. So, we’re not going to discuss it.”

An attempt to ask Anello why Householder didn’t receive a draft agenda for her review before the final version was sent out was unsuccessful before publication time.

Open Session Householder Unilaterally Removes Item for Vote on Her Removal as Board President

Then, at the beginning of the open session that began at the regular time of 7:00 p.m., Householder again, unilaterally removed the item for a vote on her removal as board president, invoking the same Robert’s Rules of Order she has violated during recent meetings. This time it was placed on the agenda by Trustee Mary Rocha and Area 5 Trustee Gary Hack.

“Because our board follows Robert’s Rules of Order, folks on a losing side of a motion cannot bring back a motion for reconsideration,” Householder explained as reason for her action.

Rocha responded, “I’ve gone through the proper channels and put it on the agenda as I was told. It’s not a reconsideration it’s a renewing.”

“Thank you for that information, Trustee Rocha. “If you recall the motion was made and because you were on the losing side you can’t bring it back for reconsideration.”

“It’s not for reconsideration, ma’am,” Rocha shot back. “It’s renewing, which is a different way of looking at it, which it can be heard.”

“I would agree with you,” Hack said.

“I will pose this question to our attorney. It is because we are a board that’s dictated by Robert’s Rules of Order,” Householder said. “I’ve never heard of this…

The district’s attorney, Lou Lozano said, “I wasn’t at that meeting. If there was a motion and if that motion failed, under Robert’s Rules of Order, reconsideration is done when a member on the winning side of the motion asks for reconsideration of the motion. I understand you operate under Robert’s Rules of Order. It’s up to the board to waive those or not. It would take someone on the winning side of the motion to bring that back.”

Rocha continued to argue her point that it was a “renewal of main motion.”

“It’s up to the board if they want to waive Robert’s Rules of Order,” Lozano said. “It would take a member on the winning side of the vote. It’s up to the board. If the board chooses to say we want to hear this motion…it’s really up to the board to decide to hear it.

Area 1 Trustee Antonio Hernandez said, “That’s pretty clear to me in following Robert’s Rules of Order. Mr. Lozano brings a very good point.”

“I can’t believe you’re letting this go,” Rocha said as Householder tried to move on to the flag salute. “I have a right to have a motion on the table. I’m sorry I’m not dropping it. I’d rather that you look at your own book and find out.”

Board Vice President and Area 3 Trustee Dr. Clyde Lewis was the only member to not comment about the matter.

ANALYSIS: During their last regular meeting on Wed., Sept. 8, Householder unilaterally removed the same item on a vote to remove her as board president from the agenda, claiming she didn’t approve it to be there, which was later proven false. She then unilaterally moved the public comments for that agenda item to the general public comments for items not on the agenda, at the beginning of the meeting. Once that occurred, the item and any motion, discussion or vote on it was moot. Yet, when the time for that item arrived, Rocha was allowed to make a motion, seconded by Hack and Householder allowed a vote on it, which failed 2-3. Yet, again, the motion and vote were moot. Therefore, having the same item placed on the agenda for the Sept. 22nd meeting was not a reconsideration of the previous motion and vote, but a new one.

Had the district’s attorney, Mr. Lozano, reviewed the video of the Sept. 8th meeting to be fully informed before participating, tonight, he most likely would have given the same advice. However, as Lozano said during the meeting, he was asked at the last minute, to participate by Householder, which is why he was dressed so casually. So, instead, while it would have been correct in a usual situation of a motion, the advice he offered was standard information from Robert’s Rules of Order and not specific to this unusual situation.  (See related article)

Householder Unilaterally Moves Agenda Item 12B Comments to End of Meeting

Following agenda item 12A, Householder was going to allow the public comments for the item 12B, which would have been a vote on her removal as board president. However, since she’d already removed it from the meeting agenda, for the second regular meeting in a row, Householder unilaterally moved the public comments for that agenda item, to item 20 for the general public comments for items not on the agenda, at the end of the meeting.

Rocha Tries Again for Vote to Remove Householder as Board President

Rocha then continued her effort for a vote to remove Householder as board president.

“Madame Chair, 12B is still the same one that I had put down for removal of board chair. Actually, Board Member Hack also brought this item up,” Rocha stated. “Again, this is a different motion than the motion, before. It’s a renewing motion not a reconsideration motion. So, I don’t believe you can remove it. Unless you want to ask the rest of the board members to renew it, then I have no choice, but to accept what the board members wanted to do.”

“Alright, so moving on. Section 7 district reports, we don’t have any this evening…” Householder said.

“I’m asking for a motion, Madame Chair,” Rocha said, interrupting her.

“You can make a motion,” said Householder.

“I’m asking for a motion for the board members that are against this motion,” Rocha said. “So, I’m saying it should be placed on there because it’s a renewing one, not a reconsideration.”

“I hear your comment, noted,” Householder said. “My suggestion would be to talk offline with any one of us. But right now, I mean…”

“If you want a motion, OK, I’ll place the motion, in place and that is to remove you as chair,” Rocha stated. “That’s my motion. I just need a second.”

“The thing is, though, Trustee Rocha, that’s not valid because you already made that motion, last time,” Householder said. “So, if there’s a motion to reconsider of myself…”

“It’s not reconsider, it’s renewing,” Rocha repeated.

“But that’s not a valid motion, so I can’t recognize it. I understand, I’ve fully noted what you said,” Householder repeated. “So, I have to insist we move on with our agenda. So, Section 7…”

“Well, Madame Chair, you can’t remove it without the rest of the board agreeing to remove it,” Rocha stated. “You did not take action.”

“Trustee Rocha, I did take action,” Householder replied.

“No, you didn’t. You didn’t take the vote,” Rocha said.

“Trustee Rocha, I’m not going to argue with you,” Householder said.

“I’m just trying to tell you, it wasn’t voted on,” Rocha said.

“OK, I’m noting your concerns,” Householder responded. “But I’m telling you that it was voted on at the last…”

“There was no vote, when it was taken earlier,” Rocha repeated.

“That’s not a valid motion that you can make, legally, per Robert’s Rules of Order,” Householder stated. “So, I cannot recognize it.”

“Renewing is,” Rocha said.

“I cannot. We just had our attorney on here, Trustee Rocha that said…” Householder said.

“It was reconsideration, but not renewing,” Rocha responded. “So, I want the board to take action. Either they want it on the board (she meant agenda) or they don’t want it. I don’t want just you making that decision.”

“Trustee Rocha, I appreciate your concerns,” Householder said. “So, Section 7 District Reports…”

“You did not take action, Madame Chair, you did not take action,” Rocha repeated. “So, that item is still on the agenda.”

Householder continued with the meeting agenda.

Other Matters

The board members discussed holding in-person meetings, again. They’ll make their decision at their October meeting.

Agree to Hire Parliamentarian

In other board action, they then discussed and approved hiring a parliamentarian, which was placed on the agenda by Anello.

“Thank you for introducing that, Superintendent Anello,” Householder said, then public comments were read, all in support of the proposal.

“I think this is a great idea. My only direction that I would provide, is it’s someone…who hasn’t been to our prior meetings, so we have a fresh start,” said Householder, who as Antioch City Clerk is the parliamentarian to the city council.

“I think it’s a healthy addition,” Lewis said. “I think the challenge will be to ensure that person is neutral. I’m a big process guy. I don’t make decisions willy nilly…around emotions. All of my decisions are based around logic and reason. Again, I think disagreement is healthy and I think a parliamentarian can add to that.”

“Both you and I are in agreement with that,” Householder said.

“I think it’s healthy. It would be good to have someone tell us,” Rocha said. “I think it’s also good for us to know what the rules are.”

“I’m absolutely in support of this,” Hernandez said. “We all have to be in agreement with who the person is. Just want to make sure we’re all working together as a board and all on the same page about things like that.”

Hack said, “I would agree it’s 5-0. Absolutely.”

“Is this a paid person?” Rocha asked.

“If we’re going to bring someone in, a contract would be brought before the board,” said Deputy Superintendent Jessica Romeo.

“Hopefully, we can have a contract on the agenda in October,” Householder said.

Future Agenda Items

Under Future Agenda Items Rocha called for a vote to censure Householder on the next meeting agenda.

“At this time, I’d like to bring forward a censureship of Trustee Householder and the need for Vice President Lewis to bring it forward, so the chair does not remove it,” Rocha said.

Public Comments

There were still 140 pages of public comments remaining to be read at the end of the meeting.

“I don’t know if we’re going to be able to make it all the way to the end,” Householder said, suggesting reading comments for 30 minutes and then taking a break. “We’ll decide that later.”

Many of the public comments were against forcing students in the district to wear masks. See all those read during general public comments, here:

Comments for 9.22.2021 RBOE – Part 1   Additional Comments for 6A 9.22.2021

More Additional Comments for 6A 9.22.2021    Two More Additional Comments for 6A 9.22.2021

Additional Comments for 6B 9.22.2021    Additional Comments for Items 12A, 12B, and 12C

School District Staff Announce Vote of No Confidence

During the public comments, one was submitted and read from the three school district staff groups, the faculty, classified and management employees, announcing their vote of no confidence in Householder by 97.5% with only 15 staff members voting no. (See related article and article with further details to be posted on this website, later)

Rocha Makes One More Attempt

During the Reports/Comments from Board Members section of the agenda, Rocha tried again to have a vote on removing Householder as board president.

“Madam Chair, point of order. Trustee Hack and myself, placed on the agenda, as required, a motion to remove board chair, Ellie Householder. I have this book, right in front of me, that says Robert’s Rules of Order. It shows you that on chapter 10, section 38, page 85…the renewal of the motion.”

Householder attempted to stop Rocha saying, “We’ve already discussed this” but Rocha continued to speak.

“So, I’m reading to you, Robert’s Rules of Order makes it easy to reintroduce a defeated motion at a future meeting,” Rocha stated. “This is called renewing the motion. So, all members have to do is request the motion to be placed on the agenda, which I have done the proper way. And so, I am ordering, at least call for the motion. I need a second. I think we should take action and then bury it.”

“Any other reports?” Householder asked, trying to move forward with the agenda.

“I need a second on this motion,” Rocha continued. “I’m calling for the motion.”

“Trustee Rocha, we’re not going to back and forth. This is an illegal motion,” Householder said. “Is there other reports?”

“No, it isn’t. I just read to you it’s a renewing motion,” Rocha responded. “So, it was placed officially, the way you wanted it.”

Householder continued to speak and try to get Rocha to stop.

“I’m not giving it up,” Rocha said. “I need a second, so we can clear this item.”

“Trustee Rocha, please, for, please,” Householder exclaimed.

“I need a second,” Rocha repeated.

“Trustee Rocha, this is an illegal motion,” Householder repeated.

“I gave you a second,” Hack said, simultaneously.

“OK. Mr. Hack just gave me a second. I’m calling for the motion to be called,” Rocha said. “Call for the motion to be done.”

“But there are other reports,” Householder then said.

“I’m calling for the motion,” Rocha repeated.

“You’re not the board president,” Householder stated. “Are there other reports?”

“But you are, and you have the right to do what I’m asking you for,” Rocha responded. “I’m asking for you…”

Raising her voice, Householder asked, “Trustee Rocha, are you calling for a motion to reconsider my judgement as board chair?”

“I’m calling for the motion for the renewal of the motion I had placed on the agenda,” Rocha responded. “I just want it voted on, so we can clear it and it’s out of the area.”

“Trustee Rocha, you’re out of order,” Householder said speaking over her fellow trustee. “You’re out of order.”

“I’m not out of order,” Rocha shot back. “I have a second on a motion. So, I’m calling for the motion.”

“Do we have any other reports or comments?” Householder asked.

“Again, you’ve misused your power,” said Rocha.

Householder moved on, again asking for any reports or comments from other trustees.

Lewis Finally Speaks Out, Apologizes for Missing Monday’s Meeting

“I have something,” Lewis said, weighing in on the matter for the first time. “You know, I think in terms of being mature about this whole situation, I think a deeper conversation is needed. We are a policy developing board. If the goal is, or if the conversation revolves around justifications for actions against a particular board member, I think that’s a healthy conversation, at some point to have. However, that conversation has not happened, and we haven’t laid out criteria for which that request should happen. I think we should have that conversation.”

“I myself, as a…trained administrator, I’m all about protocol, I’m not about emotion. I’m not about any of that stuff,” he continued. “Any decision I make, any action I take is process oriented. So, you know, I think that is a healthy conversation that should happen.”

“Obviously…as vice president I don’t have the power to put something on the board (agenda),” Lewis stated. “I did recognize your comment, earlier, Trustee Rocha, and I’ll make sure that conversation happens. But I think that’s a conversation we need to have in terms of like, OK, if there are actions taken by a board member, or if there are some things that happen by a board member, how do we move forward as a board? You know. I think those conversations should happen. Those should be clearly defined. It shouldn’t be, ‘Oh, you know, this person made a decision I don’t like, so now I want to get rid of them.’ I don’t think that’s healthy. It sets a precedence that’s unhealthy for the board moving forward. That’s my opinion about that.”

“Now, I apologize to the board and to the public for not being here, last night,” he stated. “I had some personal matters I had to attend to. I won’t go into detail about it. I made a statement about why I wasn’t here. They were personal matters I had to attend to and that’s that.”

“We need a rebalancing, and I don’t know if that requires sort of a consultant to come in,” Lewis continued. “If this is the level of conversation that we’re having amongst ourselves, what message or what tone are we setting for our teachers as well as our students? The students and the public are watching us. Regardless of what side of this conversation you’re on, the students and the public are watching us. This is uncomfortable. And I don’t mean to reprimand. I’m not speaking down to anybody. It’s uncomfortable. So, I’m going to leave it there.”

Householder Returns to Rocha’s Motion

Householder then said about the motion to remove her as board president, “so, just for clarity to address your point, Dr. Lewis, yourself, Trustee Hernandez or me can bring back, what Trustee Rocha is requesting, per what our attorney said to us at the beginning and said to us, last night.”

Rocha could be seen shaking her head, wagging her finger, showing her copy of Robert’s Rules of Order, and speaking, but couldn’t be heard by those watching, to which Householder said, “OK, Trustee Rocha.”

“Our attorney told us, last night in our discussion, as well as at the beginning of this meeting, that those are the only three people that can bring this discussion back,” Householder continued. “I’m trying to be as open to hearing. I believe discussion is great, too. That’s why I asked Trustee Rocha, is she making a motion to appeal my decision. Because then we can have a discussion about it. But frankly, I cannot allow illegal discussion to continue to happen. Because that is one of my very explicitly, enumerated duties as board president to ensure that our board bylaws are followed, adhered to, and by making illegal motions they’re not.”

“I’m trying to tell you how to make the motion so that we can continue the conversation on and that’s ignored,” she continued. “I can’t do anything about that. We’re all individuals.”

“So, with that I really must insist that if this is about the motion on the table and if we, whatever,” Householder said stopping abruptly.

She then recognized Lewis, who shared “some positive things happening in the community.”

“I’m looking forward to a time we can overcome our differences. It’s clear there’s division, here and I think we need to find a way to get past that and work together as a board, work together with the superintendent,” Hernandez said. “Because we’re here to serve the students and the longer that we spend our time having these back and forths, it’s going to keep us away from doing what we need to do to be serving these students.”

“That’s why I came on here,” he continued. “I didn’t come on here to do any of these little political things that are going on. I care about the students and that’s what I’m here for. So, I just hope that we can all, like take a moment to really dig into our own selves and get to work for these students and realize there’s a much bigger thing, here at stake, which is the education our students get every day.”

He then recognized Lewis for “a massive promotion” at work in Alameda County.

“I’d love to see this board continue to focus on positive things and not things that are going to divide us,” Hernandez added.

Use of Force Policy

Lewis asked Anello, “how close are we to getting the conversation going, again about the contract for the use of force? Are we two weeks out or 14 days, something like that?”

“It’s been 14 days. So, we’re definitely working on it,” Anello responded.

“OK. Alright,” Lewis responded.

The meeting ended at 12:35 a.m.

Check back later for any updates to this report.

Gioia and Glover vote in favor of extension; will expire Sept. 30; rent and utility relief funds for tenants, landlords available

“At some point this has to stop!” – Supervisor Mitchoff

“I think we need to move on. The economy has not improved. I want us to get back to work.” – Board Chair Burgis

By Daniel Borsuk

On a 2-3 vote, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday closed the books on its state-backed ordinance banning rent hikes and evictions potentially impacting 3,200 residential and small business tenants unable to make payments because of complications linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. It would have been the board’s ninth extension of the moratorium. CCC BOS 46990_urgency ordinance – 9th continuation of eviction moratorium

Supervisors John Gioia of Richmond and Federal Glover of Pittsburg voted to retain the program that would have ended through the end of the year, unless extended again.

Previously supervisors had easily passed ordinances without much difficulty, with only District 2 Supervisor Candace Andersen of Danville usually casting a negative vote like she did again on Tuesday, Supervisors had acted on similar residential and small commercial rent freeze and eviction ban ordinances on April 21, 2020; May 26, 2020; July 14, 2020; Sept. 22, 2020; Nov. 17, 2020; Feb. 2, 2021; March 23, 2021 and June 22, 2021.

Before Tuesday’s vote, supervisors had extended the commercial/residential rental assistance -eviction ban ordinance nine previous times with overwhelming support especially from the hard-hit Latino community, a minority group most impacted by the economic, health and housing ravages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Supervisors Candace Andersen of Danville, a foe of such rent assistance programs, cited how such programs can financially backfire and not fully assist constituents, especially in her district, mostly a high wealth area.

“There are tenants who are abusing the system,” cautioned Pittsburg realtor Wolfgang Croskey. “I know of one tenant who use the money to run another daycare operation. How long is this going to last?”

But Supervisor Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill, who had supported previous ordinances surprised most observers and colleagues saying, “I won’t extend this ordinance. At some point this has to stop!”

Upon casting the swing vote, board chair Diane Burgis of Brentwood said, “I am sympathetic to the folks. It’s not perfect. I think we need to move on. The economy has not improved. I want us to get back to work.”

“A disproportionate rate of people remains worse off,” said Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond. “It is possible we’ll run out of this rent relief money. We should extend this moratorium to the end of the year.”

Supervisor Federal Glover of Pittsburg said, “I am in agreement to extend this program to the end of the year so that citizens can get relief.”

“Tenants don’t know their rights,” said Debora Ballinger of Monument Impact. “Black and brown single mothers, especially recent immigrants need these protections.”

Monica Thomas, an artist who rents a studio where the landlord wants to raise the rent 23 percent, told supervisors she’s managed to pay her rent from her dwindling savings account.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen,” she said. “I don’t want to pay $6,000 in rent.”

Rental, Utility Relief Funds for Tenants, Landlords Available

As of March 15, the county had $75 million in rental assistance available from federal Emergency Rental Assistance Program funds. The program assists income-qualified renters impacted by COVID-19 who need help to pay for rent or utilities. Eligible household income may not exceed 80% of the local median income.

Eligible renters whose landlords do not participate in the program can still receive 25% of unpaid rent accrued between April 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible renters can also receive future rent assistance equal to 25% of their monthly rent. The program also provides up to 80% rent reimbursement to landlords for unpaid rent accrued between April 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021.

Check eligibility and apply online for COVID-19 Rent Relief and in Spanish Ayuda con la Renta. Tenants and landlords can contact the CA COVID-19 Rent Relief Call Center at 1-833-430-2122 for assistance to apply. To learn more and find state resources, visit Housingiskey.com.

In a related action, supervisors, on a 5-0 vote, approved the county’s proposal to Assembly Bill 832 – Eviction Protections. The state legislation imposes a 2.5 percent cap on rent increases.

85 Percent of County Residents at Least Partially Vaccinated

Eighty five percent of Contra Costa County residents have taken at least one vaccine, supervisors learned from Dr. Sergio Ursuyo, Contra Costa County Medical Center Medical Director, that hospital personnel are becoming increasingly tired from the rising number of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients coming to the Martinez hospital.

“This is our fourth wave,” Dr. Ursuyo said. “We are tired. This is a different type of fatigue.” He said many of the new patients come from out of the county, mainly Central California.

Dr. Ursuyo told supervisors about how a former 61-year-old nurse had recently died of COVID-19 because she was unvaccinated.

“She could have taken the vaccine,” he said. “We could have helped. The vaccine can make this thing go away.”

Some 175,000 Americans have died because of COVID-19, now exceeding the number of Americans who died from the 1918 Spanish Flu remarked Contra Costa Health Services Director Anna Roth.

Contra Costa Public Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano dispelled rumors spread mainly via social media.

“These vaccines do not change your DNA. They are very safe,” he said.

Authorize 2021-2022 Property Tax Rates

Supervisors approved as a consent item the 2021-2022 property rates. For the current fiscal year Auditor-Controller Robert Campbell projects the property rates will generate more than $2.6 billion in property tax revenues. Those funds will be apportioned to the county, cities, schools and other eligible agencies.

 

Teaches at Antioch’s Mission Elementary School; gala will be broadcast virtually

Selected as the Antioch Unified School District’s 2021 Teacher of the Year (TOY), earlier this year, Mission Elementary School’s Crystal Van Dyke will be honored this Thursday night at the county’s annual Teacher of the Year Gala. She is one of 21 TOYs from 15 school districts of Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Community College District and Contra Costa County Office of Education. (See related article)

This year’s gala is being broadcast virtually on the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) website, on YouTube and on edTV (Comcast Cable Channel 32). It will include the four finalists giving their three- to five-minute speeches (same speeches given in July). The excitement-filled evening will come to a dramatic close with the announcement of the 2021-2022 Contra Costa County Teachers of the Year.

The four finalists were announced by Superintendent of Schools Lynn Mackey in June: Alisha Douglass, a ceramics teacher at Liberty High School in Brentwood; Kristen Plant, an English teacher at Miramonte High School in Orinda; Michelle Wilson, an English teacher at Dougherty Valley High School in San Ramon; and Christina Zenzano, an English teacher at Rancho Medanos Junior High School in Pittsburg. They were selected from the 21 Teacher of the Year winners within 15 school districts of Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Community College District and Contra Costa County Office of Education.

“It is my pleasure to congratulate the four finalists on the honor of being named one of the county’s top teachers,” Superintendent Mackey said. “All of the professional educators who are being considered for this prestigious award are to be commended and thanked for their professionalism and leadership, especially throughout this pandemic. These four are prominent examples of the great work teachers throughout the county have done over the last year.”

TOY Selection Process

The county’s TOY program is directed by the CCCOE. With such a high caliber of teaching professionals to draw from, the CCCOE’s TOY program uses a three-stage selection process, with a point and percentage system to determine the final candidate as follows:

I Application Screening:

In April/May, a committee representing the county’s education, business, and public-sector partners will meticulously review the applications submitted by the school districts. This committee independently rates each application. After the application screening and scoring are completed, four teachers will be selected to advance to the next phase as semifinalists.

II Classroom Observation and Interview:

In May, a committee of former County Teachers of the Year will observe the semifinalists interacting with their students. Immediately following, the committee interviews the candidates, discussing topics such as their teaching philosophy and techniques. The results of the two screening processes are then combined to determine the four finalists.

III Speech Presentation:

In July, the four TOY finalists will each give a three- to five-minute speech to another panel of a dozen educators, business, and public-sector representatives who will judge the finalists on their speech and presentation skills.

List of past Contra Costa County Teacher of the Year Representatives from 1977 to present (PDF)

The County representatives are announced at the awards dinner gala affair. Local business and community organizations generously donate classroom grants, services and other items to each of the district winners. (See list of donors, here)

History of the TOY Program

In 1972, California began recognizing outstanding teachers, establishing the Teachers of the Year Program. This program is open to all teachers in public schools who teach pre-kindergarten through college. Contra Costa County has participated in the program since its beginning, when Joseph E. Davis, Jr., of the Acalanes Union High School District, was named the county’s first representative.

Since that time, eight teachers from this county have been State finalists: Janet Neill, San Ramon Valley Unified (1975); David Eakin, John Swett Unified (1981); William Thomas, Mt. Diablo Unified (1982); Janice Bergamini, Mt. Diablo Unified (1991); Shauna Hawes, Mt. Diablo Unified (2017); and Kelly Perkins (Mt. Diablo Unified (2019). The County has had four State winners: Mary Allan, Antioch Unified (2001); Janet Gower, Mt. Diablo Unified (2002); and William Pence, San Ramon Valley Unified (1999); and Rosie Reid, Mt. Diablo Unified (2019). Both William Pence and Rosie Reid were selected to represent California at the National Teacher of the Year level.

Follow Contra Costa County’s Teacher of the Year program on Twitter and Instagram at @CoCoSchools and through the hashtag #cocotoy.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

No action taken with VP Lewis absent; split 2-2 on how long public comments should be, Householder unilaterally reduces them from 3 to 2 minutes; she violates Robert’s Rules of Order, again

“We can’t just get filibustered all night” – Area 1 Trustee Hernandez

“It sounds like a poorly written soap opera” – public comment

By Allen Payton

Before holding the closed session to discipline, dismiss or remove Superintendent Stephanie Anello during their special meeting on Tuesday night, the four members of the Antioch School Board in attendance split 2-2 on how many minutes would be allotted to each public comment. It was the second special meeting called by Board President Ellie Householder, this month and during which nothing was accomplished. She shared in a statement issued Monday, as her reasons for calling the meeting and wanting to take the action against Anello, district students’ poor performance and test scores over the past few years. (See related articles here, here and here) (See meeting video)

Following the closed session, Householder announced that no action had been taken, as was expected with the continued split on the board and only four trustees in attendance.

This is also the second time Householder has gone after Anello, and during a special board meeting, as well. The first time was last December, just four days after Householder was elected board president on a 3-2 vote of the trustees, hoping she had the support of the two new members who gave her the one-year title and position. It was done under her explanation of discussing the evaluation process of Anello, which wasn’t scheduled to happen until this June. But the public wasn’t buying that and submitted over 260 public comments and a petition with over 1,400 signatures in support of Anello.

But residents weren’t buying that and submitted over 260 public comments, mostly in support of Anello, as well as an online petition with over 1,400 signatures in support of the superintendent.

During that meeting, as the Herald previously reported, Householder claimed there was a misperception due to an “issue of language” saying it was not for the actual evaluation. She expressed concern over “establishing metrics for the evaluation amidst a pandemic with constantly changing circumstances as it pertains to the education of children in the district.” She also said she wanted to involve new trustees, Antonio Hernandez and Dr. Clyde Lewis, in the process.” (See  related article)

Tuesday’s meeting began at 5:30 p.m. with the district’s outside attorney, Lou Lozano, present at Householder’s request, but Board Vice President and Area 3 Trustee Lewis absent, of which he informed the Herald on Monday, due to a work conflict.

Householder estimated the public comments submitted might last as long as three hours. She asked the other three trustees if the time should be reduced to two minutes for each. Trustee Mary Rocha and Area 4 Trustee Gary Hack supported keeping them three minutes

“We can’t just get filibustered all night and not get our work done,” Area 1 Trustee Hernandez said, speaking in support of reducing the public comments to two minutes.

“I just wondered, if it was your employment, would you want public comment limited?” asked Superintendent Stephanie Anello.

“I’m going to say, I’m the board president and they will be two minutes,” Householder then said.

“Wow. You’re being a bully” Rocha said.

“You don’t have the authority,” Hack interjected.

“Trustee Hack, you are not recognized,” Householder said.

“We have our attorney with us and I’m trying to be respectful,” Householder said.

“You don’t have the authority,” Hack said, again, without being recognized.

“Trustee Hack, I’m trying to be very kind right now but we’re going to be moving on,” Householder said.

Public Comments

AUSD BOE Public Comments 9.21.2021 Pt1     AUSD BOE Public Comments 9.21.2021 Pt 2

The 127 pages of public comments were then read and almost all of them were in support of Anello and critical of Householder. Some were also critical of Hernandez, Lewis and the board as a whole. Many called for Householder to resign or be removed as board president, which is on the board’s regular meeting agenda for a vote on Wednesday night. (See related article)

“It sounds like a poorly written soap opera,” read one public comment, regarding the calling of the special meeting.

“Why do I feel like I moved to Jerry Springer’s hometown?” another member of the public asked in their written comments.

The most serious comment made against Anello was by Willie Mims, representing the NAACP East County Branch for which he serves as Education Chair.

The board took a brief break at 7:50 p.m. with 50 pages of comments left to be read.

Where Was Lewis?

On Monday Lewis told the Herald, “Tuesday, I’m not available. I have to work. I can’t make that meeting. I have a work meeting at that time.”

Efforts to reach him shortly after 8 p.m. asking if his work meeting was done, and if he could join the meeting, since the public comments were still being read, and then again at 9:20 p.m. after the reading of the public comments were finished, asking if he was still at work, were unsuccessful.

Rocha Tries to Adjourn Before Going into Closed Session

At 9:20 p.m., after over three-and-a-half hours of public comments, during which only seven exceeded the two-minute time limit, the board took another brief break.

When they returned, Rocha asked Householder, “Is Dr. Lewis going to be in attendance?”

“I don’t know,” Householder replied.

“In that case, I move to adjourn this meeting,” Rocha said.

Householder Violates Robert’s Rules of Order, Again

The sound cut out briefly, but then Householder, ignoring Rocha’s motion said to her, “let’s go into closed session and you will have the floor, then,” giving Rocha the chance to bring it up, again in closed session.

According to Robert’s Rules of Order, Rocha’s motion to adjourn carries the second highest level of precedence of all motions, and Householder was required to recognize it and, if seconded, immediately hold a vote on it, without interruption, debate or amendment.

No Action Taken During Closed Session

Then the four board members and the district’s attorney adjourned to the closed session and the district’s YouTube channel feed was cut off. It lasted until 10:30 p.m. and when the board returned, Householder reported out and merely said, “Report from closed session, no action was taken.”

They then voted to adjourn the meeting and it passed on a 4-0 vote, with Lewis still absent.

Was set to expire at the end of this month

By Allen Payton

On Sept. 16, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361, entitled “Open meetings: state and local agencies: teleconferences,” extending the time period for online meetings of government agencies until Jan. 1, 2024. The current order allowing the online meetings until the end of this month, will expire on Oct. 1 under an executive order he signed, on Monday, Sept. 20.

According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, “This bill, until January 1, 2024, would authorize a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, during a proclaimed state of emergency held for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, and during a proclaimed state of emergency when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, as provided.”

However, government agencies can still choose to return to meeting in person. Both the Antioch City Council and Antioch School Board planned to return to in-person meetings next month. But now they will have the option to continue to hold their meetings online.

 

Police will review videos, body cam footage, more charges may be filed; conflicting accounts of what occurred; charges filed by event organizer, attendee, protester who claim to be injured; Captain Morefield to become Acting Chief of Police

By Allen Payton

A two-hour, farewell event honoring retiring Antioch Police Chief Tammany Brooks at Williamson Ranch Park, Friday night, was attended by five or six protesters, for about 15 minutes, and resulted in three of them being arrested for assault, assault on a police officer, interfering with an arrest and resisting arrest. The protesters, at least four of whom have been making the same accusations against the chief and the police department at other protests over the past year-and-a-half, repeated their complaints about the December 2020 incident with Angelo Quinto, as well as Brooks’ 2019 hiring of Officer Michael Mellone who fatally shot a knife-wielding homeless man on meth in 2016, while Mellone worked as a San Francisco Police Officer. (See related articles here, here and here)

The protesters were holding signs and yelling their messages, both with and without the use of a megaphone, as they stood on one side of the event, nearby those in attendance, while presentations from different groups and individuals were being made to Brooks. As people were taking photos with Brooks and shaking his hand, the protesters then attempted to move closer to him. Those in attendance moved in to block the protester’s access, while dancing to music from the band performing on the stage.

Event Organizer Claims She Was Kicked In Bad Knee

According to event organizer, Velma Wilson who had a knee replacement and walks with a cane, one of the protesters kicked her in her bad leg.

“It was either Shagoofa (Khan) or Lacey (Brown aka Ferguson on Facebook),” Wilson said.

As of Monday, Wilson said she was still in pain and that her doctor said she might need emergency surgery. She said she has to ice her knee and that it’s hard to get a good X-ray because her knee was so swollen.

“Iris Archuleta and I walked over to the protesters and tried to speak to them peacefully, but they started yelling at us. That’s when I walked away,” Wilson said. “Then they walked over toward us and yelled at us through their megaphone. Lacey started twerking up on me. When she realized she wasn’t going to be able to get me to move, that’s when she kicked me. If you see in the video at the point where the banner fell, that’s when I got kicked.”

Wilson said she has pressed charges against Brown.

Khan Gives General Denial

Asked if she, Brown or any of the other protesters kicked Wilson and if so, was it intentional, Khan responded simply, “A lot of the stuff you’re hearing is lies.”

Megaphone Use

At one point Brown was yelling through the megaphone at close range of those in attendance, including Denise Cantrell, who turned and tried to grab the megaphone strap to take it away from Brown and get her to stop.

Then, as several uniformed officers were lined up shaking hands with Brooks’ and offering their farewells, as videos appear to show, Khan, grabbed and took Cantrell’s phone. As Cantrell attempted to retrieve her phone, officers responded, Khan then struck Cantrell in the face, causing a small wound, and a swollen, bruised cheek. Officers and others restrained Cantrell while other officers pursued Khan.

Cantrell Shares Her Side

Cantrell confirmed what the videos appear to show.

“The protesters had an attitude toward me from the start because I was filming them,” Cantrell said. “Shagoofa snatched my phone out of my hand, she backed up and then threw it at me. I didn’t charge at her for no reason. I was trying to get my phone back. Then when the officer grabbed my shoulders, she took a swing at me, sucker punched me and hit me in the face with her cell phone. At first, I didn’t know what she did with it. Someone brought me my phone while Shagoofa was being arrested.”

Regarding trying to grab the megaphone from Brown, Cantrell denies scratching her.

“I didn’t touch her,” she said. “I have no nails. I work on plants.”

“I admit I grabbed the strap of her megaphone,” Cantrell stated. “That was after she was screaming in our ears, including Chief Brooks’ mom who was right in front of us.”

“My left ear still hurts and is throbbing, three days later,” she added.

“You’re not supposed to yell in people’s ears. It’s disturbing the peace and violates state law,” Cantrell stated.

“Now, I’m getting death threats because of their lies on Twitter,” she added. “From Black Lives Matter people, and I’m Black.”

Asked if she’s reported them to the police, Cantrell responded, “Yes. I had two officers, here at my home, today.”

“In all my 10 years of living in Antioch, I’ve never been involved in anything like this,” she shared.

Cantrell said that she has pressed charges against Khan.

Another Protester Arrested

Another protester, Frank Sterling, tried to interfere with the officers’ arrest of Khan, and he was then taken to the ground by several officers. As Sterling struggled with them, one officer could be heard saying, “get your hands behind your back” and “stop fighting” and one officer pulled out his taser and apparently used it on Sterling.

As Khan was simultaneously being arrested, Brown approached the officers and closely yelled at them through the megaphone. One officer told her to stop, pointing his finger at her.

Protester Brown Offers Her Viewpoint

Asked about Wilson’s claims, Brown said, “That’s completely false.” Asked if one of the other protesters kicked Wilson and if so, was it unintentional, Brown replied, “I was the only one next to Velma and I didn’t touch her.”

“They formed a line to block us, and they did that by dancing, so I danced with them,” she continued. “At no time did my feet leave the ground or kick anyone.”

When Khan was being arrested, she dropped her phone. As she was being walked away, backward by two officers, Khan yelled at Brown, “get my phone, get my phone” and “take video”. Brown picked up Khan’s phone off the grass, and then she was stopped by officers. One officer said to Brown, “I told you not to cross the line”.

“I ran up to the phone, and you can hear me say (in a Facebook Live video on Khan’s page) ‘I got it’. I picked up Shagoofa’s phone and the officer grabbed me,” said Brown. But she’s not sure if Khan’s video was ever uploaded to Facebook.

“They didn’t say get on the ground. They didn’t say anything,” Brown continued. “He ran up behind me, he grabbed my arms from behind, then he turned me, put his leg in front of mine to trip me and pushed me to the ground.”

“The line of police was in front of Frank (Sterling),” she explained. “They were in a completely different area. There were no police between me and Shagoofa’s phone.”

“They also took the phone in my pocket, as evidence,” Brown pointed out. “At no point was my phone recording at all.”

Asked if her phone was returned to her, Brown said, “not yet. I asked for it, today. They don’t have a warrant for it, by the way.”

“Even with Denise (Cantrell) coming up on me, I was intentionally avoiding contact with anybody,” she added.

“The megaphone was pointed upward, and I was talking to Tammany the entire time, unless someone pulled it down,” Brown explained. “Denise was following me intentionally to get in front of the megaphone. She was trying to take it.”

“I pressed charges against her for battery because while swiping at me trying to grab the megaphone, she scratched my arms and grabbed my shirt,” Brown said. “I also filed a complaint against the officers who watched her assault me multiple times and did nothing.”

“What Shagoofa did, as Denise was putting her phone in Kathryn’s (another protester’s) face, was trying to place her hand in front of Denise’s phone,” Brown stated. “Shagoofa did not take her phone. She had her own phone in her hand.”

She’s claiming that’s what might have struck Cantrell’s face. However, Brown said, “it was after Denise charged at her.”

“I’m saying that whatever physical interaction there was, is in this video (referring to a slowed down version of the 13-minute video),” she continued. “Shagoofa didn’t touch her.”

Brown claimed, “what started it was Denise yelling ‘f…  you’ at Kathryn, and that she didn’t care about with Kathryn’s son who had died” (which Kathryn was yelling about, claiming it occurred during an incident with Antioch Police).

Cantrell denies using that language and instead said, “I said what they were talking about had nothing to do with the chief’s going away event.”

Videos of Incident (WARNING: explicit language)

A 13-minute video was posted on YouTube. But it was edited, with the sound off during some portions, and shows a break in the footage. It was during one of those portions that Khan could be heard at one point yelling, Chief Brooks had promoted three officers the council had directed him not to promote. (That has stirred up questions of how she knows that, and which council member or members told her, when that was never discussed by the council during public meetings. Such personnel matters are dealt with in closed session).

An additional video of the incident was posted on Cantrell’s Facebook page.

Event Continues

The event continued with Brooks offering his remarks, thanking a variety of people who helped him during his 26-year career in Antioch, including his wife, Michelle, son Tammany IV, mother and sister – who were all in attendance, as well as his two captains, Tony Morefield and Trevor Schnitzius. That was followed by a BBQ dinner and dessert, and then a slide show of photos from his life and police career, plus the video from the police department lip-sync challenge a few years ago. (See videos here, here and here)

Morefield will become the city’s acting chief of police, following Brooks’ departure early next month. Although retiring from the APD, Brooks has accepted a new position as Deputy Police Chief of Boise, Idaho. (See related articles here and here)

Please see more photos of the event on the Antioch Herald Facebook page.

Police Provide Arrest Details, Will Review Body Cam Footage, More Charges May Be Filed

Antioch Police Sgt. Green said two of the protesters, “Shagoofa Khan and Lacey Brown, were cite released for assault and resisting arrest.”

A third protester, “Frank Sterling, was booked into county jail for assault on a peace officer and attempted lynching,” Green continued. That means Sterling interfered with the arrest of another person which is a felony. (However, according to a CBS News report, that term was removed from state penal code 405a as the result of a bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2015 and the crime is no longer referred to that way).

“Things may be subject to change, now that a more complete video of what happened is available,” Green stated. “Fortunately for us, we have all the body cam video and there were several officers there. Now, we will review all the body cam videos and after that’s done more charges might be added. That will be determined between investigations and the DA’s office.”

“We also want to make sure our officers were within policies, as well,” he added. “The investigation is ongoing

Referred to as disturbing the peace, California Penal Code 415, section (2) prohibits a person from maliciously and willfully disturbing another person by loud and unreasonable noise. Yelling through a megaphone at close range to someone’s ears could easily fall under that prohibition. In addition, section (3) prohibits a person from using “offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction”, as the video shows the protesters were doing.

About use of the megaphone, Sgt. Green said, “There are warning labels on those megaphones that it will cause permanent hearing damage.”