Acting Antioch city manager admits “oversight” preventing councilwoman from remotely participating in council meeting
Followed 72-hour required noticing process
“…this is disheartening.” – Councilwoman Torres-Walker in an email to Acting City Manager Cortez
By Allen D. Payton
During the Antioch City Council meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker was absent but unable to attend remotely via Zoom as allowed by state law. That’s in spite of her following the required process to do so. Complaints were made during the meeting by members of the public that staff had made a mistake with one going so far as to call it “sabotage” as it prevented Torres-Walker from participating in and voting on the matter of the Homekey+ program at the Antioch Inn & Suites. The councilwoman was the one who pushed the matter and encouraged the City to pursue the state grant of $34.9 million.
Torres-Walker called in both during public comments on the agenda item to offer her input, then again, at the end of the meeting when she said, “In advance of the meeting, I submitted all the necessary documents to participate,” she said. “It speaks to the disfunction. This is in no way a sleight to Acting City Manager Cortez. So, I don’t blame Ms. Cortez for not posting my location within 72 hours before the meeting.”
Emails released on Friday by Cortez confirm what the councilwoman claimed and show Cortez’s inaction prevented Torres-Walker from participating in and voting on the matter, and all other agenda items during the meeting. The acting city manager called it an “oversight.”
Process for Official’s Remote Participation in Meetings
The agendas for public meetings must be publicly posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. According to California Government Code section 54953 (b)(3), “If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public.”
In addition, under subsection (c)(2) “A member of a legislative body participating in a meeting by remote participation pursuant to this subdivision shall do both of the following: (A) The member shall participate through both audio and visual technology; (B) The member shall disclose at the meeting before any action is taken, whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member, and the general nature of the member’s relationship with any of those individuals.”
Torres-Walker provided the location where she would be during the meeting and that was supposed to be included in the meeting agenda posted on the City’s website by Saturday, July 25th. City staff usually posts regular council meeting agendas by Friday afternoon prior to the Tuesday night meeting. The agenda for the July 28th meeting did not include Torres-Walker’s planned location which is what prevented her from participating remotely.
Email Exchange, Cortez Admits to “Oversight”
On Thursday, July 23, 2026, at 9:36 AM Torres-Walker sent Cortez an email informing her “I will be out of town and I need a zoom link to join close session and the council meeting” on July 28th. Then at 9:38 AM, Cortez acknowledged receipt of the email and responded, “As soon as I have it from our IS department, I will share with you.”
Then, in response, at 10:29 AM, Torres-Walker provided the location where she planned to be during the July 28th meeting. She wrote, “Here is the address where I will be zooming in from. Homewood Suites by Hilton San Jose Airport-Silicon Valley, 10 W Trimble Rd, San Jose, CA 95131, USA.”
But no response from Cortez acknowledging receipt of that email was provided.
On Friday, at 5:33 PM, Assistant City Clerk LaTonia Peoples-Stokes emailed all City employees, the city clerk and bcc’d the council members with “the link…for the City Council Meeting Agenda and Staff Reports for July 28, 2026,” and that, “The Agenda Packet will be available on the City’s Website shortly.”
On Monday, Torres-Walker informed Cortez she would have to cancel a “check-in” meeting planned for 1:00 p.m. that day. Cortez responded until 7:08 PM that night. But nothing was mentioned about the councilwoman’s location during the meeting missing from the agenda.
Then on Tuesday morning at 10:43 AM Cortez emailed Torres-Walker that she had left voicemails for the councilwoman on her work and personal phone the day before and wrote, “Unfortunately, your request to participate in tonight’s meeting via Zoom cannot be accommodated. Under the Brown Act, there are specific requirements for a Councilmember to participate remotely. The meeting agenda must include notice of the remote participation location, and the agenda must also be posted at that location. These requirements are subject to the Brown Act’s 72-hour noticing timeline, which cannot be met for tonight’s meeting.
“Additionally, with the new public comment procedures, the City would need to provide two separate Zoom links—one for members of the public providing comments and a separate link for Councilmember participation. Please note the Zoom link I shared with you has been set up for public comment participation. We would need to issue a new link for Councilmember participants.
“If you would like to discuss this further, please let me know and I would be happy to talk with you.
“We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
“Thank you.”
At 11:17 AM Torres-Walker responded, copying City Attorney Lori Asuncion and asking Cortez why her remote location wasn’t included in the council meeting agenda. The councilwoman wrote, “Hello, Acting City Manager Cortez. I provided my location, and when I noticed it wasn’t included on the agenda, I knew it would be a challenge. Who overlooked this?”
Cortez responded at 12:30 PM, also copying Asuncion, admitting it was her mistake writing, “This was my oversight, and I take responsibility for it. While I was aware of your location, I did not identify the Brown Act requirements for remote participation in time to ensure the agenda included the required information and that the posting requirements could be met within the 72-hour noticing period.
“I apologize for the oversight. Going forward, I will ensure these requirements are identified and communicated in advance.
“Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further.
“Thank you for your understanding.”
————-
Torres-Walker responded to Cortez at 4:39 PM, again copying Asuncion, writing, “Hello, Acting City Manager Cortez.
“I did my part.
“1. Requested to participate in the meeting via Zoom in advance of the meeting
“2. I provided the location
“3. I posted the agenda in the lobby 72 hours in advance
“I understand that we are understaffed and that the Clerk’s Office is in a learning position, but this is disheartening.”
—————-
No additional communication between the councilwoman and acting city manager was provided.
Mayor Ron Bernal and the other three council members allowed the item regarding the Homekey+ program at the Antioch Inn & Suites to be discussed and voted on that night. During her called-in public comment, Torres-Walker said, “If I was there tonight and had the opportunity to vote, I would vote to move forward.”
The matter ended with a 3-1 vote to rescind the prior authorization for the funding and withdraw from the project, with District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson the only one opposing. So, Torres-Walker’s absence did not affect the outcome.
the attachments to this post:
Cortez email to Torres-Walker admitting oversight 072826
Torres-Walker email to Cortez providing remote location 072326
Torres-Walker email to Cortez out of town 072326
Cortez email to Torres-Walker re Zoom link 072326
Ana Cortez ACCMtg & Tamisha Torres-Walker
