Save the date for the East Bay Men’s Recovery Center’s Car Show + Trunk or Treat Oct. 31st, 10am- 4pm in Downtown Rivertown, Antioch!
Vehicles will be displayed on G Street from the river (bulb) to 4th Street and on W. 2nd Street from I (eye) Street to F Street.
We’re excited to spend time in our community, create a safe space for kids to get their candy, and raise money for our recovery program!
Interested in becoming a sponsor? Give us a call or send us a message at 1-800-418-6139 or info@ebmrc.net.
The East Bay Men’s Recovery Center works to give “men struggling with addiction a hand up, not a handout” offering a 12-month program at their location in Antioch. For more information about ebmrc.net.
Con Fire and Antioch Police personnel attend to the stabbing victim near the corner of N. Lake and E. Lake Drives early Sunday morning. Photos by Allen D. Payton
By Allen D. Payton
Early Sunday, Oct. 18, 2026, at 12:54 AM, Antioch Police were called to a stabbing, according to dispatch. According to the Antioch Police CitizenRIMS, the incident occurred in the 40 block of N. Lake Drive, police and Con Fire personnel responded and were seen treating a man sitting on the sidewalk near the home.
A Con Fire engine leaves the scene as the victim is attended to early Sunday morning.
The incident is described as a domestic dispute and inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, cohabitant or dating relationship – aggravated 273.5(A) PC., the crime type is listed as an assault and classified as a felony.
Multiple officers responded and two could be seen speaking with a woman at the home where the stabbing occurred.
Teresa Linda Iglesias, age 44, was arrested and charged with the aforementioned crime and 417(a)(1) PC: exhibiting a deadly weapon other than a firearm – weapon law violations, misdemeanor. The five-foot, six-inch tall, 170-pound suspect is white.
According to the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, Iglesias was booked into county jail at 7:47 AM Sunday and bonded out of custody at 12:56 PM that same day.
28 charged in statewide Operation Protect the Vote, five in Bay Area
By Ciaran McEvoy, PIO, U.S. Attorney’s Office Central District of California
LOS ANGELES – Federal law enforcement throughout California today arrested 11 foreign nationals living in the United States who are charged in criminal complaints with federal crimes, including that they fraudulently registered to vote in U.S. elections, electoral contests in which most of them cast illegal and fraudulently obtained ballots.
A total of 28 people were charged statewide, 21 who actually voted in elections and 11 were arrested today. Law enforcement is seeking the other individuals or they have been summoned.
Source: republicanpollworkers.com
Today’s arrests are part of “Operation Protect the Vote” – a coordinated effort among all four California-based United States Attorney’s Offices to combat and root out fraud in U.S. elections and protect electoral integrity.
All 28 foreign nationals charged are lawful permanent residents (LPRs), or “green card” holders. Although LPRs have legal immigration status in the United States, they are not U.S. citizens and are not permitted to vote in U.S. elections.
The criminal charges include making false statements in a naturalization application and some of the defendants also are charged with fraudulent voter registration. Both charges are felonies that carry a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison.
The defendants arrested today are expected to make their initial appearances this afternoon in U.S. District Court. No pleas will be taken today.
On October 13, the federal government provided a list of these individuals to California to ensure that their vote-by-mail ballots were set aside until these individuals’ citizenship status could be confirmed. California declined to assist the federal government in setting aside their ballots, prompting a lawsuit by the United States that seeks a court order to prevent the unlawful dilution of American citizens’ votes and to uphold the integrity of our elections.
“Every illegal vote cancels out the vote of a lawful American citizen,” said Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter. “Each of the 28 defendants charged today appears on the list of more than 20,000 likely noncitizen registrants we provided to California election officials last week. California refused to look at that list. Today’s charges show exactly what that refusal puts at risk. California must verify the citizenship of those more than 20,000 registrants before mail-in ballots are counted.”
“Today’s arrests prove what we have been saying,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli. “California is mailing ballots to noncitizens, and they are refusing to comply with federal law, which makes it a crime for noncitizens to vote. The voting rights of American citizens must be protected.”
“Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) is committed to protecting the integrity of our nation’s electoral process by investigating allegations of criminal conduct that undermine public confidence in our elections,” said HSI Acting Executive Associate Director John A. Condon. “Working with our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners, we will continue to pursue those who knowingly violate federal law, while ensuring that every investigation is conducted fairly, thoroughly, and consistent with due process.”
According to court documents, the defendants knowingly and willfully lied under oath in their voter registration applications that they were U.S. citizens to be permitted to vote in California. Their fraudulent voter registration applications were approved, and, in many cases, the defendants illegally voted in recent U.S. elections. They subsequently lied in their paperwork to become naturalized U.S. citizens that they had never claimed U.S. citizenship, nor had they registered to vote or voted in U.S. elections.
Broken down by jurisdiction, the following defendants are charged in today’s takedown:
Central District of California
All the following defendants below in this jurisdiction face felony charges, including false statements in a naturalization application:
Omar Alexander Muñoz, 72, a Belizean national living in Commerce, fraudulently registered to vote in September 2019, claiming his was a U.S. citizen, then voted in U.S. elections in 2020, twice in 2022, and in 2024. He also lied on his application to become a naturalized U.S. citizen when he falsely stated under oath to have never claimed to be a U.S. citizen.
Amandeep Kaur, 30, an Indian national living in Rancho Palos Verdes and who is seeking to become a U.S. citizen, fraudulently registered to vote in December 2022 and voted in the November 2024 U.S. election.
Ana Domínguez, 60, a Salvadoran national living in Long Beach, fraudulently registered to vote in July 2006 and lied in her naturalization paperwork in March 2026.
Axel Giovani Prera García, 46, a Guatemalan national and Pico Rivera resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2002 and 2005, and lied in his naturalization paperwork in June 2025.
Flavio Alejandro Zúñiga, 43, a Mexico national and La Puente resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2003 and lied in his naturalization paperwork in February 2026.
Butleng Taing, 43, a Cambodian national living in Long Beach, fraudulently registered to vote in July 2021, voted in the 2022 and 2024 U.S. elections, and lied on his naturalization paperwork in August 2025.
Carlos Antonio Galeas, 54, a Honduran national and West Covina resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2012 and 2016, then lied in his naturalization paperwork in September 2018.
Ernest Gutiérrez Ruvalcaba, 57, a Mexican national living in Wilmington, fraudulently registered to vote in February 2024 and voted one month later.
Jesús Narez-Madrigal, 52, a Mexican national living in Carson, fraudulently registered to vote in 2014, voted in the 2024 U.S. general election, and lied in his naturalization paperwork in June 2024.
José Antonio Bañuelos-Díaz, 42, a Mexican national and West Adams resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2007 and lied on his naturalization paperwork in March 2025.
Muhammad Khan, 50, a Pakistani national and Anaheim resident, submitted a provisional ballot in 2020 and lied on his naturalization paperwork five years later.
Rouzbeh Seyamaknejad, 63, a Canadian national and Rancho Palos Verdes resident, fraudulently registered to vote in December 2018, lied in his naturalization application in January 2024, and voted in the November 2024 U.S. election.
Sulema de León, 35, a Mexican national and Long Beach resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2013, lied on her naturalization application in 2019, and voted in the November 2020 U.S. general election.
Eastern District of California
The following defendants are charged with voting by an alien in a federal election, a misdemeanor that carries a statutory maximum sentence of one year in federal prison:
Maricela Nazarín González, 43, a Mexican national living in Clovis, registered to vote in 2020, indicating that she was a U.S. citizen, and voted in elections in 2022, twice in 2024, and 2025.
Rony de Jesús Sicaja, 38, a Guatemalan national living in Fresno, fraudulently registered to vote in 2017, and voted in the June 2022 primary election and the November 2024 general election in the United States.
Camino Giles Jiménez, 51, a Mexican national living in Kerman, knowingly voted in three U.S. elections despite knowing he is a noncitizen, the most recent election being the June 2026 primary.
Juan Antonio Rivas García, 46, a Mexican national and Sacramento resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2018 and 2020, both times falsely asserting under oath that he was a U.S. citizen. Rivas voted in the 2022 and 2024 U.S. elections.
Giezell Viduya Adawag, 41, a Philippines national and Vacaville resident, fraudulently registered to vote the day of the November 2024 general election, falsely certified that she was a U.S. citizen, and voted in the election that day.
Kamlesh Navnitlal Shah, 67, an Indian national living in Sacramento, fraudulently registered to vote on the day of the November 2024 general election and voted that day. He is charged via information.
Northern District of California
The following defendants are charged with attempted procurement of naturalization contrary to law, false statement under oath in any matter relating to naturalization or citizenship, and voting by an alien:
Verónica Bullene, 43, a.k.a. “Verónica Hernández Martínez,” a Mexican national living in Petaluma, made false statements on her naturalization application that she had never claimed to be a U.S. citizen when, in fact, she did so under penalty of perjury to register to vote in 2022 and 2023 then voted in 2024.
David Shapiro, 41, a Georgian national living in San Jose, fraudulently registered to vote in 2024 and later voted in a U.S. election, and made false statements on his naturalization application that he had never claimed to be a U.S. citizen.
Moe Thida Lwin, 57, a Myanmar national and Daly City resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2024 and then proceeded to illegally vote in a U.S. citizen. She made false statements on her naturalization paperwork as well.
Manakotau Mataele Finau, 61, a Tongan national and Hayward resident, fraudulently registered to vote in the 2024 election then vote, then lied about it in naturalization paperwork.
Maribel del Carmen Garcés Barriga, 62, an Ecuadoran national and San Francisco resident, made false statements in her naturalization paperwork that she never claimed U.S. citizenship and had never voted in a U.S. election or had registered to vote. In fact, Garcés fraudulently registered to vote in 2024 and proceeded to vote in a U.S. election.
Southern District of California
The following defendants are charged with false claim to citizenship to vote, unlawful attempted procurement of naturalization, and false statement under oath in matter relating to naturalization or citizenship:
José Probitsado Amaro, 51, a citizen of the Philippines living in National City, fraudulently registered to vote by falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen. He then cast a ballot in the November 2024 general election and made false statements during his naturalization interview, denying that he had ever claimed U.S. citizenship and misrepresenting his voting history.
Jennifer Jung, 31, a Canadian national living in San Diego, fraudulently registered to vote by falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen. She then cast a ballot in the November 2024 general election and made false statements during her naturalization interview, denying that she had ever claimed U.S. citizenship and misrepresenting her voting history.
Erick Ronaldo Soto Mendizábal, 64, a citizen of Guatemala and former Oceanside resident now living in Moreno Valley, fraudulently registered to vote by falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen. He then cast a ballot in the November 2024 general election and made false statements in his naturalization application, denying that he had ever claimed U.S. citizenship and misrepresenting his voting history.
Pamele Arbués Line, 56, a citizen of the Philippines living in Escondido, registered to vote, cast a ballot in the November 2024 general election, and made false statements in her naturalization interview, denying that she had ever claimed U.S. citizenship and misrepresenting her voting history.
Criminal complaints and informations merely contain allegations. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) is investigating these matters in the Central District of California. HSI and the FBI are investigating these matters in the Eastern and Northern Districts of California. HSI, the FBI, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are investigating the matters in the Southern District of California.
Assistant United States Attorneys Michael Wheat and Minjae Kim of the Orange County Office are prosecuting the Central District of California cases. Assistant United States Attorneys Kevin Khasigian and Joshua Banister are prosecuting the Eastern District of California cases. Special Assistant United States Attorney Roger Dinh is prosecuting the Northern District of California cases.
Incumbent Colin Coffey is facing challenger Inderprit Sekhon in this year’s East Bay Regional Park District Ward 7 race. Photos: EBRPD and LinkedIn
Colin Coffey’s challenger, Inderprit “Indy Rishi Singh” Sekhon, wants “to promote and educate about ecological medicine” and “dance for office instead”while the incumbent touts his accomplishments and plans
By Allen D. Payton
Running for a third four-year term as a Director on the East Bay Regional Parks District in Ward 7, Colin Coffey faces a unique candidate, Inderprit “Indy Rishi Singh” Sekhon, who is running a different campaign while dancing to a different tune and offering an alternative focus and approach to the position. Ward 7 includes the northern waterfront portion of Contra Costa County from Pinole and Hercules in the west to the eastern county line north of Discovery Bay. (See map and below)
Cities and Communities in Ward 7 include: A portion of Alhambra Valley south of Martinez, Antioch, Bay Point, Bethel Island, Brentwood, Clyde, Crockett, Hercules, Knightsen, Martinez, and the adjacent Mountain View on the east side, Oakley, Pacheco, Pittsburg, Port Costa, Rodeo and Vine Hill between Martinez and Pacheco.
The Regional Parks in Ward 7 include: Antioch/Oakley Regional Shoreline, Bay Point Regional Shoreline, Big Break Regional Shoreline in Oakley, Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve in Antioch, Briones Regional Park west of Pleasant Hill, Browns Island Regional Preserve north of Pittsburg, Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline, Clayton Ranch Regional Preserve, Contra Loma Regional Park in Antioch, Crockett Hills Regional Park, Delta Access Regional Recreation Area north of Discovery Bay, Radke Martinez Regional Shoreline in Martinez, Rancho Pinole Regional Preserve east of Pinole, San Pablo Bay Regional Shoreline, and the Waterbird Regional Preserve/McNabney Marsh near Martinez.
Asked why Rancho Pinole doesn’t appear in the list of parks on the District’s website, Coffey shared, “Rancho Pinole lands in a section of the 2013 Master Plan that will be a regional park. It’s not currently operated by the District, but by the John Muir Land Trust. It includes Fernandez Ranch, about 1,000 acres, also includes the Franklin Canyon Ranch, surrounding the golf course. It totals about 2,000 acres so far. The Park District has partial ownership interest in Fernandez Ranch. The plans show someday it will all be converted to an East Bay Regional Park District park.”
Also, Deer Valley Regional Park south of Antioch, which includes the former Roddy Ranch Golf Course “is being returned to its original natural habitat. They’re ripping up the golf course paths as they’re not suitable for hiking,” he continued. “We recently acquired more land on Briones Valley Road near Brentwood. It will possibly break ground early next year. Within a year it’s possible we’ll open to the public. We already have a parking lot there, which really helps. We’re doing public programming there, already.”
East Bay Regional Park District Ward 7 boundary map. Source: EBRPD
About Coffey
According to his bio on the East Bay Regional Parks District website, retired attorney Coffey is a resident of Hercules and “was appointed to the Board in January 2017. Previously, he served on the Park District’s Park Advisory Committee twice, first appointed by former EBRPD Director Ted Radke from 2001-2009 and appointed by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors from 2012- 2017. He has also been a volunteer Ambassador for the parks for 19 years. He is a longtime supporter of the John Muir Land Trust and a member of the Regional Parks Foundation.
“Director Coffey is a retired partner with the (law) firm Best, Best & Krieger in Walnut Creek. Director Coffey is a public health attorney, representing public and nonprofit healthcare providers. He is a past president of the Contra Costa Bar Association. Director Coffey is married, has two children and resides in Hercules. He is a lifelong resident of Contra Costa County.”
According to his campaign website, Coffey “was elected to the Board in 2018 and re-elected in 2022. He was a public health attorney, representing public and nonprofit healthcare providers and is a past president of the Contra Costa BAR association.
“Coffey’s family was politically active, and he served as an intern in then-Congressman George Miller’s Washington, DC office in his youth and later was the Congressman’s appointee to the Democratic Central Committee for 23 years.
“Coffey, his wife Mila and their two adult children are life-long parks and trails enthusiasts.”
His campaign is focused on the following issues: “Preservation of New Open Space and Wildlife Habitat / Aggressive Pursuit of Wildfire Risk Reduction / Enhanced Public Safety in the Parks; New Open Spaces; and Wildfire Mitigation.”
Coffey offers a long list of his accomplishments while in office under the categories of Leadership, Preservation of Open Space and Wildlife Habitat or Restoration of Natural Areas and Excellence in Programs and Policies.
He also shares under “Looking Forward – If Re-elected:” that fact that in “2027 I will be President of the Board and working with our new GM Max Korten. This will represent a huge opportunity for North and East Contra Costa input into open space preservation and wildlife habitat preservation. I will help complete a new 10 year Master Plan, highlighting future preservation of open space and wildlife habitat, more ways to enjoy open space, and continued focus on wildfire risk reduction.” Plus, other projects such as, “Extend the Marsh Creak Regional Trail to Dutch Slough on the North and to Round Valley Regional Park on the South” and “Build the proposed Delta Bay Trail from Bay Point to Antioch/Oakley and beyond,” and “Repairing and funding Hazel Atlas Mine and Great House Visitor Center to keep consistently open,” in East County.
Plus, “Rancho Pinole acquisitions and regional park development in partnership with JMLT (John Muir Land Trust) to create a future large regional park in the Hercules and Pinole area” and “Support Rodeo Community Association campaign to have EBRPD expand Lone Tree Point Park and clean up contaminated land in the area. Incorporate Greenway Vision for Rodeo shoreline into Master Plan” in West County.
About Inderprit “Indy Rishi Singh” Sekhon
According to the campaign website for Crockett resident Inderprit “Indy Rishi Singh” Sekhon, he “is a regenerative farmer, community organizer and systems thinker. His work focuses on the relationship between personal health, community wellbeing and the health of the land. He is running because he believes the Park District can build on its legacy of land protection and become a more active partner in public health, climate resilience, ecological restoration and community stewardship. His question is straightforward: How can the land we have already protected do more good for the people and places around it?”
In a post in August on his LinkedIn profile page, Sekhon wrote, “I’m on the California ballot as Inderprit Sekhon (government name). Check out what East Bay Regional Park District does and get involved with our campaign. We are seeking to collaborate with healers, artists, educators, ecological stewards, farmers, and anyone who feels like their skills/ideas are important, but not valued enough by government or current economic systems. Learn more about my intention to promote and educate about ecological medicine,” with a link to the website for his non-profit organization named Cultivating Self.
In that same LinkedIn post is a video which he says, “I don’t know why I’m doing this. But I’m running for office this fall. But, yeah, maybe I do know why I’m doing this. But I also feel it’s good to not know why I’m doing this,” with a laugh. “How can an organization with so much money and have so many resources how can it be a resource for the community, an asset for the community…how can that be part of our preventative, ecological medicine? That’s why I’m doing this. I don’t even know why and also, I do know that we need to do something…”
Then, in a post on Friday, Sept. 18, Sekhon wrote, “What if a neurodivergent Generalist ran for office? What if he decides to dance for office instead? find out what’s possible: https://lnkd.in/gsQVRw8h.”
That takes you to his campaign website where it shares his slogan, “Healthy land. Healthy people. Public money that works.” He writes, “The District has spent generations protecting land. Indy’s campaign asks how that protected land can more fully sustain the people and communities around it,” and his platform is to “Protect. Connect. Deliver.”
Under “Protect” Sekhon writes, “Care for the land before the emergency.Keep land, water, roads, trails and fire-prone landscapes healthy and safe — with maintenance and ecological stewardship matched to the places the District manages,” and lists “Wildfire resilience, Wetlands and shorelines, and Healthy soil and habitat.”
Under “Connect” he writes, “Make parks work for more people.Treat parks as public-health and belonging infrastructure, with better access, locally relevant programming and meaningful ways for residents to participate,” and lists, “Health and wellbeing, Transit and first-visit access, and Youth and paid stewardship.”
Finally, under “Deliver” Sekhon wants to, “Make public money produce visible results.Modernize field systems, publish priorities and costs, and make it easier to see what is being fixed, restored and improved,” and lists, “Transparent priorities, Modern field tools and Measurable outcomes.”
The first-time candidate also offers what he calls his Donut Vision 2036, of “A safe and thriving place for people and planet,” and writes, “Doughnut Economics asks how we meet more human needs without damaging the living systems we depend on. Indy’s 2036 vision applies that question to Ward 7’s parks and communities.”
Under the subheading, “People thrive” Sekhon shares about “Health, Food, Youth and Access,” and under the subheading, “Nature thrives” he writes about “Fire resilience, Shorelines, Biodiversity and Circular systems,” specifically, “Turn organic material back into useful ecological value.”
Sekhon also writes, “The theory of change: If we invest in parks as infrastructure for both people and planet, healthier land can support healthier communities, healthier communities can become stronger stewards, and accountable public systems can reinforce both.”
He then offers what the future will look like by following his vision, writing, “Ward 7, 2036. See the place. Imagine the next chapter.” Sekhon offers six parts to his vision: “The Shoreline We Can Restore, The Park That Heals, The Park That Feeds, The Park That Creates Work, The Government You Can See, and The Land We Care for Before Crisis.”
Under “Public money that works – You should be able to see what your Park District is doing,” Sekhon writes, “The argument is not that every public dollar is discretionary. It is that a large public institution should make its priorities, costs and results understandable.”
He includes eight focus areas: “Maintenance response & repair times; Trail & facility condition over time; Wildfire hazards treated & acres restored; Water quality & ecological outcomes; Residents reached; Local organizations contracted; Ward 7 investment; and Project costs, owners & timelines.”
Under “Heartstorming Ward 7 Listening that leads somewhere” Sekhon explains, “Most public engagement begins with a survey. Heartstorming begins with a place, a conversation and a practical question: What would help your community thrive here?” He lists five tasks to accomplish it: “1 Experience the place, 2 Share what you see and need, 3 Imagine what could change, 4 Connect ideas to policy and action, and 5 Invite people back into the work.”
Finally, Sekhon offers, “Plain-language FAQ What does this mean?” and asks and answers four questions: “Why call it ‘Doughnut Vision’? The doughnut is a simple model: make sure people can thrive while keeping ecological systems healthy. The campaign uses it as a long-horizon method, not as a prerequisite for understanding the platform.”
He continues, “Is every 2036 idea already an official Park District program? No. The site distinguishes campaign proposals and future concepts from existing District programs. Partnerships are not implied until they are actually established.”
Recognizing his limitations as only one of seven board members Sekhon writes, “What does one Park District director control? One director does not control the District alone. Indy would need to build public support and Board support for pilots, policies and investments.”
Finally, the challenger asks, “Why focus on public systems?” His answer is, “Maintenance, ecological care, field data and capital decisions are connected. Better information and clearer priorities can help staff, the Board and residents understand what needs attention and what progress looks like.”
Sekhon then invites voters to “Help shape Ward 7’s next decade. Vote. Volunteer. Share a park story. Come to a Heartstorming event. Help turn a long-horizon vision into practical work.”
AUSD is at a crisis point. This is no time to elect someone without the experience, financial or otherwise, to keep the district afloat while critical decisions are being made.
Mary Rocha voted:
• No on hiring the current embattled superintendent,
• No on salary increases without budget impact information,
• No on mass layoffs, without Explanation on how students would still be served with less staff.
Mary has pressed the superintendent to focus on students, parents, and the community, and she has been the voice of reason while the superintendent provided little to no information about the current fiscal crisis
Experience matters. Mary has served on the board since 2018 and is the only trustee who brings experience and institutional understanding to the table. Two members (Cabos Smith and Brown) are in their first term. The current board president (Jag) is not running again and will be replaced in December by a new board member (Reese). The immediate past president (Hernandez) is in his sixth year, however he spent those years pursuing graduate work at Stanford and Davis toward becoming a physician, and in my view gives minimal attention to his role as trustee.
The political practice of districting, implemented in 2022, brought four new members to the board who lacked the experience to make decisions with long-term consequences.
It was not always this way. Before districting, the board was made up of trustees with varied backgrounds and focus. Gary Hack, a former teacher and AEA president, brought understanding of and advocacy for employees. Claire Smith, who had children in the district for many years, was the voice of parents, families, and students. As a former corporate director and nonprofit executive director, I spent my 12 years focused on contracts and fiscal solvency. A diverse board with diverse opinions has always served this district best.
The results of the current board’s decisions are clear:
The superintendent’s hiring. She was hired by a 4-1 vote without fully vetting her background. A simple Google search shows she left Sequoia Union High School District in December 2022 with a $299,000 severance package under a mutual separation agreement, and that her later tenure at Pacifica School District drew backlash over budget deficits and job cuts. Her contract gave her the same number of workdays as a principal, which is unheard of. A new salary scale was created for her, far above those of former superintendents. A $12,000 relocation package was included, and the reimbursements approved only by the board president at the time (Hernandez) are questionable.
Raises for all. The board approval was 4-1 based on a positive certification reported in 2025–26 First Interim Report (December 2025), which should have begun with “once upon a time…
Layoffs. After a deficit of more than $30 million was uncovered, layoffs were made without a solid plan from the superintendent. The scattershot approach, meant to save $18 million, did little to achieve fiscal solvency, and more layoffs are coming.
Special education. The department was reorganized to save $600,000. Directors were combined, left for other districts, or not rehired. That decision gutted the department and leaves the district open to lawsuits, as students may not be receiving their IEP-mandated services.
Today, the district faces a serious deficit, superintendent is on paid administrative leave and has filed a lawsuit naming AUSD, Mary Rocha as an individual, and Unnamed Individuals 1 through 50. In my opinion, that suit is a strategy to secure another package to quietly go away, as she did at Sequoia.
The California Department of Education this week released the annual California School Dashboard, the state’s multidimensional, multicolored look at student, school and district achievement.
The dashboard was designed to offer parents a quick look at student results, as well as to provide data for guiding school improvement and for holding districts accountable. Trying to serve these different purposes has created a data system that’s complex and comprehensive, often useful, but also daunting for first-time parent users.
The California Department of Education has translated the dashboard into multiple languages and produced dozens of flyers, videos, and an annually updated Dashboard Communications Toolkit. This is a good place to start.
Here are some answers and tips to help parents navigate the dashboard experience.
What’s the purpose of the state dashboard?
The dashboard gives an extensive look at every school, charter school and school district’s yearly performance as measured by ratings on eight state indicators. They are standardized test scores, of course — English Language Arts and math in grades 3 through 8 and grade 11, English learners’ progress, and, in 2026 for the first time, science.
Along with high school graduation rates, there are ratings for chronic absences, though only through grade 8, and suspension rates; both measures underscore the importance of engagement and school climate to student success.
There is also a measure of how well high schools prepare students for college and careers. It has expanded to include 14 measures. They include:
Satisfying the A-G course requirements for admissions to UC and CSU campuses
Passing multiple AP and International Baccalaureate courses
Successfully completing two semesters of credit-bearing college or CTE courses
Attaining a seal of biliteracy or a seal of biliteracy
Completing a CTE pathway or pre-apprenticeship program
Passing the Leadership/Military Science and Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery Test
Demonstrating work-based learning.
What’s the point of using colors?
Rating performance by color serves a double purpose. There are five: blue signaling the highest achievement, green, yellow, orange, and red signaling the lowest performance. Each color reflects a blend of two factors, evenly weighted: the current year’s test score or rate, and the change from the preceding year to credit improvement or signal a decline deserving attention.
Screenshot of San Jose Unified’s dashboard from the 2026 California School Dashboard
A school’s goal is to achieve green or blue for any indicator, but a sharp change from the results of students the year before can elevate an otherwise yellow score to green or lower it to orange.
For example, clicking the math score “odometer” for San Jose Unified reveals that students averaged 25.4 scale points below the threshold for proficiency or “meeting standard” in math in 2025-26 — a significant gap. Its students also gained 1.5 points from the year before. The combination is rated orange, two levels below green. The same template applies to other indicators.
Why is there no overall rating for a school’s or district’s performance?
Unlike other states’ dashboards, the State Board of Education chose not to give a summative or top number or rating for a school or district, in order not to overemphasize test scores, at the expense of other important measures. It also wanted to draw attention to achievement gaps among student groups, which would be hidden by focusing on an average score for all students.
Screenshot of Antioch Unified’s English Language Arts and Mathematics 2026 Dashboard
How do student groups factor into the dashboard?
Tracking achievement gaps among 15 different student groups, including eight racial and ethnic groups, drives the dashboard. Every student group with a statistically valid number (usually a minimum of 30) receives a color rating on every indicator in every school and district.
While five of San Jose Unified’s student groups scored in the orange range, English learners, foster youth, long-term English learners and students with disabilities scored in the red band. White students achieved a green rating, and Asian students and students with two or more races were rated blue.
Screenshot of San Jose Unified 5×5 schools report for math scores
Every district’s dashboard includes grids — the 5×5 Placement Reports — that lay out the color rating for every school in the district on every indicator. Here’s the 2025 math 5×5 grid for San Jose’s Unified, for example (The 2026 grid will be released Dec. 15). It shows that of the district’s 40 schools on the grid, 12 rated orange, 10 were yellow, seven were green, six were blue and five were red.
As with all districts with student groups receiving a red rating on an indicator, San Jose Unified must then address low achievement in its Local Control and Accountability Plan, better known as the LCAP. That’s the three-year improvement plan in which districts must list, among other requirements, an action item, including funding, for every student group with a red rating.
Can you compare districts’ ratings on the state dashboard?
No, but you can compare schools within each district.
Other organizations have included a comparison tool in modifying the state dashboard.
Screenshot of Antioch Unified’s 5×5 Report Chart from the California School Dashboard
What are local indicators?
The dashboard includes priorities for which there are no statistically valid comparable statewide data or assessments, but nonetheless are vital for successful schools. These include family engagement, school climate and access to a broad course of study.
The State Board of Education requires that districts analyze each local priority and report back to the public annually. Examples are the results of local school climate surveys and the district’s actions to improve public engagement. For example, county offices of education must report on how well they are coordinating services for foster youths and expelled students.
How does dashboard information drive improvement?
Districts in which at least one student group is rated red on two or more priority areas, such as low reading scores and high chronic absenteeism, are designated eligible for “Differentiated Assistance.” They are encouraged to seek guidance from county offices of education or the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, a small state agency, on how to improve. Differentiated Assistance is voluntary and applies only to districts.
Since the dashboard’s first year, in 2017-18, more than three-quarters of districts, charter schools and county offices have qualified for differentiated assistance, with more than 80% of those identified two or more times.
In 2026, only 144 school districts will qualify for differentiated assistance, down from 418 last year. Recognizing a need to focus on fewer districts with more intensive, effective help, the State Board revised the criteria, and districts will receive assistance for three years, instead of one year.
Districts are selected based on poorly performing subgroups as well as districts’ overall scores receiving red ratings. Most of those qualified because of the low ratings for students with disabilities and long-term English learners, and in some charter schools, for low ratings of Hispanic students, according to Department of Education analysis.
John Fensterwald writes about education policy and its impact in California.
By Dan Radovich, ADA Coordinator & Communications Manager, Contra Costa County Superior Court
The Contra Costa County Superior Court has released its Strategic Plan for 2027–2029. This three-year roadmap focuses on improving access to justice, developing and retaining a skilled workforce, expanding community outreach and partnerships, maintaining secure court facilities and information systems, and streamlining operations through technology and data.
The plan is built on key input gathered earlier this year from Contra Costa County residents and court users through a public survey, as well as from County partners, justice partners, and members of the bench and court staff.
The plan includes five Strategic Priorities with three goals for each:
Accessible Justice
Workforce Excellence
Trusted Courts
Safe & Secure Courts and
Operational Excellence & Innovation
The Court thanks everyone who took the time to contribute their perspectives and ideas, especially the residents and court users who completed the survey. This feedback was essential to shaping the plan’s priorities and goals.
Following their special Closed Session meeting on Oct. 7th in which they decided to leave Acting City Manager Ana Cortez in that position, the Antioch City Council will hold another special Closed Session meeting on Monday, Oct. 19th to discuss appointing an interim city manager.
As previously reported, City Attorney Lori Asuncion said at the Oct. 7th meeting, “If and when an interim city manager is chosen and an agreement reached, the appointment and agreement will be brought to open session during a regular city council meeting for consideration.”
In addition, during that same meeting the “Council provided direction to staff to move forward with a Request for Proposal process for the permanent city manager recruitment,” she stated.
The 2:00 p.m. meeting will allow for public comments before the Council adjourns into the closed-door session. Members of the public may only comment regarding the one agenda item. To offer public comment via Zoom or by phone, see instructions in themeeting agenda.
Following that they will return to the Council Chambers for the city attorney to report out any action taken.
