Antioch Council approves current investment policy, appoints committee to develop “woke” restrictions
Thursday, July 2nd, 2026
Public speakers – not all from Antioch – name four companies the City should divest from or not invest in claiming they’re part of Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza; if investments sold now there would be a loss
Work group to bring back proposed policy additions in 6 months with progress report in 3 months, as world’s two largest investment firms abandon them
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, the Antioch City Council unanimously agreed to move forward for future consideration liberal activist or “woke” practices in the City’s investment policy. The proposal was brought back after the council members failed to adopt the current investment policy on a 2-2 split vote during the June 9th Council meeting. Mayor Ron Bernal and Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas voted in favor, Councilwomen Monica Wilson and Tamisha Torres-Walker voted against, and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha was absent.
Referred to as Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) or Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Investing, the practice would, according to the City staff report for the item, #8 on the agenda, “filter out and exclude sectors and/or companies the City does not want to invest in. The current Policy includes two such prohibitions in Section V.3:a. which reads, ‘The City will not invest in any companies that produce alcohol for public consumption or tobacco products.’”
During the June 23rd meeting, the council directed staff to meet with a group, that has labeled itself Divest Contra Costa, to further develop proposed language, despite the world’s top two investment firms moving away from the practice that limits in which companies they can invest.
The group, which has no website, social media presences or a list of members, proposed the following language it wants added to the City’s investment policy:
“The City of Antioch will strive to invest its funds in ways that promote the wellbeing of our communities and our environment, favoring investment in entities that support the needs of peacetime daily life, in companies that offer renewable energy and other climate mitigation strategies, in companies with a strong environmental, labor, and social records, or in socially responsible community projects within our City.
“The City will refrain from investment in harmful industries such as tobacco, fossil fuels, mass incarceration or immigrant detention, and weaponry of any kind, or in companies with a consistent record of direct involvement in severe human rights violations such as slavery and prison labor, war crimes, illegal military occupation, racial segregation or apartheid.”
The challenge is how each of those categories will be defined and by whom, and the effort has specifically been to divest from companies based in Israel as the Left considers that country’s actions in Gaza an “illegal military occupation.”
In addition, space related companies use fossil fuels to power their rockets, and the Left is opposed to the world’s first trillionaire, Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, which just issued its first public offering. Such a policy could prevent the City from investing in that or other similar companies and enjoying returns on investment from its growth.
According to the National and Legal Policy Center (NLPC), the world’s largest asset manager, “Blackrock was one of the pioneers of ESG investing, but in early 2025 abandoned “the ‘woke’ policies.” It was “the biggest sign yet that the vibe has shifted against liberal activism in the private sector.” In addition, NLPC reported in May 2026, “Vanguard, the second-largest index fund manager with approximately $10 trillion in assets under management, has similarly retreated in public posture while its index funds.”
According to the City staff report, while “there is no cost to adopt the draft policy attached, should the City choose to adopt an ESG investment practice, additional investment advisory fees could be incurred.
Public Comments
During Public Comments, all who spoke supported adding such language to the City’s investment policy, with some wearing black-and-white checkered Palestinian and other keffiyehs, which are traditional head scarves worn in the Middle East and North Africa. They offered more details about the companies they don’t like, “in solidarity with Palestinians” and spoke against Israel’s military actions in Gaza as well as the U.S. military industrial companies that manufacture the arms being used. Others in the gallery held a Palestinian flag and wore a shirt with Palestinian flag colors. Three people held up a large poster showing a photo of children with the words, “Stop Investing in Our Genocide.” A speaker, who said his “family came from the West Bank where they currently reside” and runs a non-profit for Palestine, claimed those in the photo were in an orphan camp in Gaza.
“As a concerned world citizen, I have an obligation to stand up to injustice,” another speaker said.
A resident, who said he was “of Palestinian decent,” spoke of “specific exclusions” and mentioned companies he claimed “are tied to harm” that include some based or with operations in California: aerospace and defense contractor Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of construction and other equipment, Caterpillar, BP (British Petroleum) and Chevron, which relocated its headquarters from San Ramon to Houston, Texas at the end of 2024, due to the unfavorable government policies and opposition from those on the Left. He said his group wants the City instead “investing in” other projects such as the Homekey homeless hotel. That project will actually cost the City money and offer no return on investment for its portfolio.
The final man to speak and for a second time on the item, said he was from Concord and implored, “I think you need to realize that the litmus test for our humanity is what’s happening in Gaza and we’re funding it as well as Israel. Antioch has the choice…the chance the lead the way.” He said the Concord City Council “voted it down right away.”
Council Discussion and Decision
Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas asked staff about the amount the City receives from its investments. He mentioned a little over $2.1 million that the City will be receiving from “investments and rentals” in Fiscal Year 2027.
“That’s just in the General Fund,” City Finance Director Dawn Merchant responded. “All funds have investment income. But…every month the City Treasurer submits a Treasurer’s Report that lists all the investments, the security transactions and interest for that month, and a presentation twice a year from our investment advisor that gives portfolio earnings…year-to-date and from inception.”
“So, anyone who wants very detailed information about our investments they can look at our agenda, tonight?” the councilman asked. “Yes,” she stated.
District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker then asked about the current investments in three of the companies mentioned during Public Comments.
“The total, I assume this is cash value…Caterpillar, Chevron and Lockheed Martin…if the investments were sold there would be a loss. What is the total amount the City is making from these three investments…would it be a significant loss?” she asked.
“That’s the market value versus what the trade value would be,” Merchant responded. “There would be a loss.”
“There are two specific holdings for Caterpillar,” said the City’s investment advisor, Justin Resuello, Institutional Sales and Relationship Manager of PFM Asset Management (PFMAM). “The par value of both is…a little over $1.6 million and those mature in August 2028 and February 2029. Those currently present losses of approximately $1,274 and $17,103.”
“The two Chevron positions…both have a part of a little over $1.3 million,” he continued. “One matures Feb. 2028 and August 2028.” If sold now the City would lose about $500.
“The last position is one holding with Lockheed Martin that matures August 2028 with a par of about $600,000 and a current unrealized loss of about $5,000,” Resuello shared.
“So, these are all in that three-year end strategy. We’re pretty close to maturity,” he explained. “Our preference is still that the holdings are not sold at a loss. But…if that is what the Council wishes to do, we’ll act on your decision.”
“These amounts can change daily,” Finance Director Merchant interjected.
Torres-Wallker then said, “I think the question is, is the loss significant enough to not consider.”
“That’s up to Council discretion,” Merchant responded. “Any loss no matter what the amount, especially in our financial position. However,..if Council doesn’t want these investments…then that’s what we’re going to do.”
Torres-Walker then asked, “Is it possible to add additional language” to the section already prohibiting investments in tobacco and alcohol manufacturers. “I think this has already come up that we will not invest in companies that are involved in war crimes.”
“For the analytics that is used by investment companies, there’s no metric to say this company is involved in war crimes,” Merchant explained. “The language…that talks about apartheid, there’s not metric where they would be able to identify that. So, that’s where it gets a little bit tricky.” She then stated that the council could add sections from the proposed restrictions to the policy.
“As explained, this is not something that happens overnight. It’s taken some agencies up to a year to dial down on these investment strategies,” Merchant shared. “So, I don’t want to assume what the council majority will decide tonight.”
“I’m not saying that would be the direction of the council because it’s been a year people have been coming…asking,” Torres-Walker responded. “Your recommendation is that we take more time to develop a p policy. People are asking we immediately divest.”
“The recommendation would be to include language that investments that…fall from an exclusions list are either held until there is no loss or maturity, whichever occurs first,” Merchant stated.
Freitas then repeated what a member of the public said, who, “articulated what I think is part of the challenge for the city council…to adopt a clear, ethical investing policy, that we need to establish standards, that we need to have accountability. The word that I would use is making it doable.”
The councilman spoke of serving on the Contra Costa Water District Retirement Committee “back then in the “70’s, 80’s and 90’s apartheid was the issue. We needed to develop a policy…that can be followed…for accountability.”
“Sometimes, one person’s opinion is not necessarily factual,” Freitas stated. “The investor needs to have clear, articulated standards so that he or she does not get crosswise with the council. Time and time again, people would come with their interpretation of some of the things. Some are very easy to understand what the situation is.”
“This is not an easy policy,” he continued. “It’s not finger pointing and saying, ‘no,’ to you and ‘yes,’ to you.’ It’s much more difficult. Because as a city council we have a legal and a fiduciary responsibility with regards to investments.”
“So, frankly, I believe…adopting a clear, ethical investing policy that has standards and accountability and from my perspective, doable…that should be the direction to City staff, to PMF (PFM) and I think Divest should identify two or three people on a periodic basis that there are discussions, so we hear some of the concerns…and those are taken into consideration…to develop a policy that we can live with.”
“I do think this is a situation that we need to take a look at. But we should not do it quickly,” Freitas stated. “I think we should do it methodically, I think it should be inclusive. I think this is a very, very important issue.”
District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson asked, “Can you add to that, a working group?”
“Two weeks ago, I suggested the City Manager, the Director of Finance, PFM and representatives from Divest,” Freitas responded. “That was, to me, a working group…so, they know what’s happening, questions can go back and forth and I have to believe a good, workable policy will have to come back to the City of Antioch.”
District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha said, “I think the City Treasurer should be part of this collaborative.”
“I agree,” Freitas said.
“I would like to know…what makes the most sense for the City of Antioch and what aligns with what we heard tonight,” Rocha continued. “There’s the SRI option and…the ESG option. One’s more complex than the other.”
“What was suggested to me, was that we adopt the Treasurer’s Report, but that we are open to hearing, looking into and adopting some of the policies that have been discussed tonight. So, I think we would want to do a blend.”
Mayor Ron Bernal then asked City Treasurer Jorge Rojas, Jr., “to give us his thoughts on the policy.”
Rojas said, “We have the two options from PFM. We never said anything regarding potentially adopting an ethical investment policy. Pretty much Council is the one that makes that decision. We either wait for maturity dates, take the loss right now and go from there.”
Bernal asked him, “What would be your recommendation?”
Rojas responded, “My recommendation would be to adopt the policy that was recommended, last meeting, the investment policy, and like Louie was saying, take a look at it. Get back to it, revise it, perhaps…have that committee, take a look it perhaps every six months or so and then go from there.”
Torres-Walker then said, “I’m also getting the sense from the community, we’re under the gun, we need to pass this right now. I believe the council was made to believe there would be some outside penalties and that was clarified there are not any outside penalties and we do have discretion.”
“I do agree that the language we really want, and I hope the community agrees with this, and that is we do move forward with the recommendation, and we pass the (existing) policy,” the councilwoman continued. “Because it’s the City’s ordinance and we can change it any time.”
“There’s a legal requirement by the State that we have a Statement of Investment Policy with guidelines that meet State mandates,” Merchant explained.
“I do agree with putting some group together,” Torres-Walker stated. “I also agree with passing the policy as is while this group works together. But I will say government often pacifies people with ad hoc committees and work groups that lead nowhere. We can be back here in a year, two years, three years with still no…ethical investment language…no…policy and with no intent to ever have done so and that is not a process that I want to agree to tonight, if it is not something that City staff is going to commit to move forward and actually work with the community on because it would be doing a disservice to the residents and the public who showed up here, tonight.”
“So, I guess I’m curious to understand is there an intent to come back with a timeline…that things will start to move?” she asked. “So, that this is not just a way to get them out of the room.”
Freitas responded, “Let me just take a crack it” and made a motion to adopt a resolution to approve the Statement of Investment Policy, form the committee to start developing an ethical investment policy, and the council receives quarterly reports and at the end of six months, it comes back as a presentation to the city council, “where are we at, what are the issues and how do we move forward.”
Torres-Walker then asked to add to the motion, “I hear six months.”
“Quarterly, that’s what I meant,” Freitas said.
Rocha then seconded the motion.
“Select your three folks, and immediately, I mean tomorrow morning send an email saying these are our representatives that we would like to meet. Do not let this sit,” Torres-Walker implored those in the audience.
Without further discussion, the motion passed unanimously to applause from the public.
See complete Agenda Item 8.
Watch from the 3:32 mark of Council meeting video.
