Torres-Walker, Thorpe repeatedly interrupt city attorney during discussion
By Allen D. Payton
During Tuesday night’s Antioch Council meeting agenda on May 23, 2023, the council reviewed the City policy, for all of its departments, regarding the selection of contracted attorneys and the review, authorization and execution of all agreements for legal services and services to be provided by attorneys to the City. But the focus was revising the policy so that the council is not included.
Currently City Attorney Thomas L. Smith is charged with that responsibility based on the policy approved by the city council two years ago. But, last fall, the council, on a 3-2 vote, directed City Manager Con Johnson to hire an outside attorney for them on an invalid contract after Smith warned them three times not to, according to District 1 Councilman Mike Barbanica. That cost the city $39,000. (See related article)
According to the city staff report on the item, the Antioch City Council on February 26, 2021 approved the following:
“1. The City Attorney shall exercise discretion over the selection of all attorneys providing Legal Services, as defined herein, for the City including all of its departments.
2. [A]ll agreements for the provision of Legal Services, as defined herein, to the City, including all of its departments, or on behalf of the City that are to be paid by the City shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval, and the City Attorney shall have the discretion to approve and execute all such agreements on behalf of the City when the City Attorney determines the agreement is consistent with Antioch Municipal Code, Title 3, Chapter 4, Article II. Any agreements for Legal Services to the City or on behalf of the City that are not approved by the City Attorney in writing shall be void.
3. [A]ll invoices for Legal Services, as defined herein, shall be required to be submitted to the City Attorney for review and payment through the City Attorney’s Office. No payment shall be made for Legal Services pursuant to existing or future agreements unless approved in writing by the City Attorney. Therefore, the budgeted amount for the City Attorney’ s Office shall include the amounts necessary for the payment of such invoices.”
“I think that pretty sums it all up,” said resident Andrew Becker during public comments on the item. “We approve ordinances in this city which are the law then we come to meetings, brazenly and we try to find a way to work around them. Whatever those determinations are you still have to live inside what the law is. You open us up…and you so brazenly do it. I voted for it with the understanding you would follow the laws in this city. Sometimes the law…means fixing it. But fixing it doesn’t mean circumventing it. Every time something comes to a vote we hear what the mayor says how he wants it to go and we take it. But for you to say we’re going to take our current policies and throw them out the window? For you to go on record and so brazenly say, we’ll figure out. The law? That’s how the healthcare district dissolved.”
“This item is being brought because this is a new policy. We adopted it as part of our police reform,” Thorpe said. “We wanted the city attorney to review the hiring of attorneys. In the past the police department just went and hired their own attorney. As has happened often, this policy binded us as a city council. But we’re the governing board.
“The California government code says the city attorney shall advise the council on all legal matters,” Smith interjected.
“We heard you the first time, thank you,” Thorpe responded. “This policy didn’t allow us to go get a second opinion. As a governing board…we should be able to do that.”
“The very same reason we created this policy is because the community is saying the police department’s internal affairs. Police shouldn’t review themselves,” Torres-Walker stated. “If we don’t trust what the city attorney is giving to us, we should have the right to get a second opinion without the city attorney. Our city attorney shouldn’t be able to hire an attorney to look into themselves.”
“Yes, it was a good policy in hindsight. But the council shouldn’t be included,” she added.
“I’d like to address that. If you don’t trust the people you’ve hired…” City Attorney Smith began saying.
“I don’t think we’re here for the council to get into a back and forth with the city attorney,” Torres-Walker said speaking over him. “I didn’t ask a question of the city attorney.”
Thorpe then allowed him to speak.
“I think it’s important what you said. If you don’t trust your city attorney, you have the ability to hire any city attorney you want. It only takes three votes,” Smith stated.
Torres-Walker interrupted him, again.
Thorpe stopped her and said, “I don’t want to get into a back and forth.”
“I just have to say is if there is a trust issue you can hire…” Smith began saying before being cut off, again.
“I think we’re all aware of that,” Thorpe responded.
“Perhaps the proper terminology isn’t a lack of trust but a disagreement with the advice being offered,” Torres-Walker clarified. “We should be able to seek outside counsel.”
“If we want a second opinion, we should be able to get a second opinion,” Thorpe said asking to have the policy revised.
“I went back and looked….I did not vote for it originally,” Ogorchock said. “I’m not in favor of this, now. He’s just reviewing the contract.”
“No. He would select the attorney,” Thorpe responded. “And we wanted this, and it included us. But I don’t think we should have to get a permission slip.”
“There has to be a city out there similar to ours,” Wilson said. “I can’t imagine there’s not a process that we can take to hire an attorney not of your choosing.”
“Before this policy, that was the case,” Thorpe responded. “If we wanted a second opinion, we could give direction to the city manager to hire an outside attorney. There are different examples. But I don’t want to go down that road. I’m just saying we shouldn’t be a part of this policy. All I’m asking is for that modification to this policy which I still think is a good policy.”
“I think we should go back and revise it,” Torres-Walker said. “There’s never been an instance when I didn’t trust our city attorney. So, I didn’t use the right language. But there was an instance when I didn’t trust the process. City Attorney, this isn’t me saying I don’t trust you. I should have used different language.”
Barbanica then said, “initially I was not for this. I’m fine with the policy the way it is, today.”
Ogorchock simply said, “no.”
Wilson supported revising the policy, agreeing with Thorpe and Torres-Walker that it should not apply to the city council. A revised policy will return for a future vote.
An officer in the top of the Antioch Police Department’s MRAP shot multiple non-lethal rounds into the Aster Drive apartment where the suspect had barricaded himself on Wednesday, July 21, 2021. Herald file photo
By Allen D. Payton
At the request of Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe, following comments from two members of the public, one who thought it was put to good use, the city council members discussed the police department’s MRAP military vehicle during their meeting Tuesday night, May 23, 2023. They agreed to keep it for now and at the request of District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica, APD staff will search for a non-military alternative.
The Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) military light tactical vehicle was donated to the City by the federal government. As previously reported, the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency’s 1033 program allows the Pentagon to give extra military equipment to local police departments across the United States. It’s part of their mission of disposing obsolete and unneeded excess property turned in by U.S. military units around the world. The type of property ranges from military-specific equipment and vehicles to generic office furniture, computers, medical items, and shop equipment. (See related article)
The department relabeled it a “Rescue Vehicle” and uses it for intense situations including stand-offs with armed suspects as occurred a few times in the past two years. (See related article)
“The only thing I would ask is, I don’t believe we need the tank,” Thorpe stated. “There are alternatives to the tank. I don’t think we need this. The MRAP was designed for something completely different. The MRAP was not designed for the streets of Antioch. Police officers are not trained with the MRAP. Given where we’re out I don’t think it looks good for Antioch. There’s no room for militarized equipment. I hope council can agree to that.”
“We would like to look at an alternative, too…moving into the 21st Century…if council is interested,” said Lt. Joe Vigil.
“There are armored vehicles that we can look at that keep our community safe,” District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica said. “I’m willing to do it…working with the chief, maybe the mayor pro tem, something that’s law enforcement based. There are plenty of them out there. I’m definitely willing to work with the chief and work through any proposals and bring it back to council for discussion.”
“I don’t necessarily know what the MRAP is used for. People say it looks scary,” said Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker. “I do believe there is a necessity to use such a vehicle in the community…to keep people safe. While the council pursues a different vehicle that’s more suitable…that will come at a cost. The MRAP that we all want off the streets will stay in commission while trying to obtain a different vehicle.”
“Mayor Pro Tem, there are some options to reduce those costs. There are grant programs,” Vigil responded. “We are willing to explore every option.”
“I do believe the police department is capable of finding an alternative. I don’t believe it’s necessary to form a committee,” Thorpe said.
“It’s the policy that I’m concerned about,” Torres-Walker responded.
“Let’s separate those things,” Thorpe stated.
“Because it’s not coming from the military it will be purchased,” Vigil explained. “We would either sole-source or send out an RFP and bring it before council.”
“I think she’s talking about policy, when we deploy it,” Thorpe said. “And any policy for the police department would come before the Police Oversight Commission.”
“To clarify, the current vehicle stays in operation until we find another vehicle,” Barbanica stated.
“I’m open to that and to immediately appointing people to the Police Oversight Commission,” Torres-Walker said with a chuckle.
“As soon as my support is hired,” Thorpe responded. “I’m not a secretary. I don’t coordinate people’s schedules.”
City Attorney Thomas L. Smith asked for a motion and vote which Barbanica attempted to make. But because Thorpe said the policy included with the agenda item was incomplete, the item must return for a future council vote.
Mayor Thorpe and Mayor Pro Tem Torres-Walker were taken to task by Antioch Police Officers’ Association attorney.
Says they incited ‘mob justice’ and “‘engineered’ an intentional delay in having officers interviewed” postponing their return to work
City follows Skelly Hearing disciplinary process, council members have no say
“…the Chief suddenly got cut-out of any role or responsibility in directing or managing the investigation, or even communicating with the investigator,” – APOA attorney Mike Rains
By Allen D. Payton
In response to the recent calls by Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe and Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker for the immediate termination of the police officers involved in the text scandal, reported by the Herald last Friday, that same day Michael Rains, attorney for the Antioch Police Officers’ Association, sent a scathing letter to them and the other three members of the city council. In his letter, Rains, of the Pleasant Hill-based Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver law firm, both chastises Thorpe and Torres-Walker, calling out their own behavior while in office, and labels the two reports from the Contra Costa DA’s office “misleading” and “highly partisan”. (See related articles here and here)
He also claims the two council leaders “‘engineered’ an intentional delay in having officers interviewed.”
The letter from Rains reads as follows:
Police Officer Texting Investigation and Recent Public Statements by Mayor Thorpe and Vice Mayor Tamisha Torres-Walker
Dear Members of the Antioch City Council:
As you are aware, this Firm serves as General Counsel to the Antioch Police Officers Association (APOA) and all of its individual members. We represent all of the officers who have been recently placed on administrative leave pending an investigation of text messaging which occurred between approximately 2019 and 2022 by Antioch police officers which were described and discussed (in many instances inaccurately and in a misleading fashion) in two reports prepared by Contra Costa County District Attorney Inspector Larry Wallace.
Frankly, it is a tragedy that the City, the Police Department and the public have been “fed” misleading and what we believe highly partisan reports prepared by the District Attorney’s Office for reasons we hope to decern in future litigation, but which have resulted in widespread but undeserved condemnation of many police officers for engaging in “racist” or “sexist” texting when no such texting by many such officers, in fact, ever occurred.
By all accounts, the Mayor and Vice Mayor are ecstatic to condemn the entire police department for the “sins of few” and place themselves in the glare of the public spotlight, which has most recently shined down on both of them proclaiming that all of the officers on administrative leave should be fired and, in essence, the Police Chief should “start over” and hire an entire crop of new recruits to replace the mass of racists and sexists who were formerly employed.
Of course, it is not either unusual or uncharacteristic of either the Mayor or the Vice Mayor to be displaying ignorance or indifference to the law or acting inappropriately, such as the Vice Mayor’s previous profanity – laden, public tirade against the police that, standing alone, should have resulted in her removal from the Council; or the Mayor’s demonstrated disregard of the laws concerning sexual harassment of females and the laws prohibiting drunken driving. In other words, neither the Mayor nor the Vice Mayor are what most would recognize as “role-models” that a constituency should rely upon for receiving factual and accurate information or advice.
However, the very pinnacle of irresponsibility on the part of the Mayor and Vice Mayor are their recent synchronized chorus to the public and media for the Chief to fire all of the police officers who have placed on administrative leave on the texting case. Neither the Mayor nor the Vice Mayor truly understand the “facts” of this case, or they would know and explain to the public that the admittedly highly inappropriate texting that they “smear” every officer with was engaged in by only three or four. The officers who are on leave, for the most part, were simply included, without their knowledge at the time, or their wishes in most cases, on “text chains” between 20 and 30 officers which have been in existence for months if not years. In many cases, the officers on the text chains were off-duty and asleep when the texting occurred and did not even take the time to review the content of text messages upon quickly determining that they involved matters of no importance or interest to them.
Perhaps the Mayor and the Vice Mayor do, in fact, know the truth – that the texting which essentially the entire department has now been condemned for is the product of a few. To our knowledge, the Mayor, perhaps in an unholy alliance with the City Attorney, has now excluded the Police Chief from directing the “outside” administrative investigation of the officers on leave. Instead, despite the fact that our Office has continually attempted to schedule interviews of virtually all of the officers we represent who have been placed on leave without a factual or legal basis, the outside investigators have rejected our request to interview our clients, telling us that they have only gotten authority from “the City” to set dates for interviews of four of the officers on leave.
Thus, before the administrative investigation has even determined whether the vast majority of the officers on leave can be subjected to discipline for misconduct, the Mayor and Vice Mayor attempt to incite “mob justice” by calling for the immediate mass firing of officers who have done absolutely nothing to deserve discipline. This may further the “spotlight” which the Mayor and Vice Mayor appear to enjoy, but it deprives the citizens of Antioch of the services of somewhere near 20 additional police officers who cannot, and will not, under established law regarding employee discipline, be terminated.
We have no doubt that, even if the Mayor and Vice Mayor had even a “passing familiarity” with the law concerning “just cause” for the discipline of public employees (which is clear they do not), they would simply urge the Police Chief, who under City rules and procedures will make the decision concerning discipline of his police officers, to disregard those laws or try to incite the public to condemn the Police Chief if he dared to apply the facts established by a thorough and objective investigation to the existing law, and not impose termination.
By refusing to direct the City’s retained investigators to immediately schedule and conduct interviews of all of the officers on administrative leave, while simultaneously condemning those officers publicly and demanding their firing, the Mayor and Vice Mayor have deprived every member of the community of the additional police officer resources available to them to make Antioch a safer community. Instead, the “City’s” very clear disinterest in insisting that all of these officers be interviewed and receiving a report from the retained outside investigator, which will undoubtedly clear most, if not all, of any misconduct, allows the Mayor and the Vice Mayor to continue to appear under the spotlight they covet, and sell the public a lie about the facts of the case, hoping, no doubt, that good police officers, tired of being unfairly maligned by these two irresponsible “public servants” will simply quit. It is clear that neither the Mayor or Vice Mayor have any sincere interest in the investigation of all these officers to be completed, and the truth really known.
To the extent that the public, the police department, the media and all of us have been forced to make conclusions of what officers said or meant in text messages, or deprived of the understanding of the context in which text messages occurred or the identity of the person who was the “object” of the texting at the moment, as a result of the misleading and distorted report of DA Inspector Wallace, we have all been fed a “bill of goods” to begin with.
Nevertheless, the irresponsible manner in which the “City”, under the direction of Mayor Thorpe and Vice Mayor Torres-Walker have “engineered” an intentional delay in having officers interviewed in order to be cleared of any wrong doing, while simultaneously calling for their mass termination, is a clear demonstration of their indifference to ethical behavior and their disregard of allowing their highly experienced, knowledgeable and ethical Police Chief to make the decisions he should be making concerning both the work status of his officers and the progress of the “outside” investigation supposedly underway.
Very truly yours,
Rains Lucia Stern
St. Phalle & Silver, PC
Michael L. Rains
———————
Outside Investigator Replaced Before Police Interviews Began
City Attorney Thomas L. Smith hired Cerritos, CA-based Angela Powell, a partner in the law firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, to conduct the investigation of the text messages. She has 26 years’ experience as an attorney. Her services ended by Monday, May 15, the day the interviews of the officers were to begin. In her place, the City hired San Jose-based attorney Allison Hernandez, a Senior Associate with the law firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen who earned her law degree in 2016.
Rains Provides Details on Investigators, Process
Rains was emailed questions, specifically asking what he meant by his claim in the final paragraph of his letter that Thorpe and Torres-Walker had “‘engineered’ an intentional delay in having officers interviewed”. He was asked, “does that refer to the replacement of the outside investigator, Angela Powell who found no fire-able offense in the text messages, with Allison Hernandez? Can you provide any details on that?”
Rains responded Monday afternoon writing, “Even with the replacement of Angela Powell with Allison Hernandez, the interviews of 2 of the witnesses we represent went forward with Allison on the dates we had originally agreed-to with Angela. As an aside, we never found out why Angela was suddenly ‘out’ as an investigator, but I suspect it had to do with her perception that the ‘City’—and I am referring to Thorpe and Torres-Walker, had no interest in being fair or objective in any aspect of this case, which is why the Chief suddenly got cut-out of any role or responsibility in directing or managing the investigation, or even communicating with the investigator. I had suggested to Angela that, if she was disturbed by what she was seeing her ‘client’ do, and if that would put her in an untenable ethical position, she should simply declare a conflict, fire her client (the City), and have someone else hired to do the investigation. The next thing I knew was that Angela was gone, and we were told that Allison Hernandez would be doing the interviews of our clients.
My reference to the ‘City’ engineering an intentional delay relates to the fact that we had told Angela, when we learned she was coming to doing interviews from May 15th through the 18th, that either RLS Partner Julia Fox, Nicole Pifari, or myself would be available those 4 days to participate in the interviews of all of our clients who had been placed on administrative leave, so she could get all the officers interviewed that much faster, and we would have a better chance of getting them off administrative leave, and back to work. Nicole Pifari even sent Angela a suggested interview schedule for all of our clients. In response, Angela contacted us, as said that the City had only authorized her to interview 4 out of all the clients on leave (3 of whom are our clients, and 1 of whom is represented by another lawyer).
We then asked her to ask the City to allow her to get these other interviews done, but they would not authorize her to do so. Thus, they have essentially done nothing to allow all of these officers on leave to be interviewed, so we can clear them of any wrongdoing, while they simultaneously call for their summary terminations—that’s the dishonesty of it all. We still have not got Allison Hernandez to get any authority/direction to interview all of our other clients who continue to languish on administrative leave.”
Questions for City Attorney & Police Chief Go Unanswered
Questions were sent to City Attorney Thomas L. Smith and Police Chief Steve Ford asking if Angela Powell was hired as the outside investigator in the Antioch Police officers’ text message scandal, that she found there were no fire-able offenses, her services then ended last Monday, May 15 the day before interviews were to begin and then she was replaced by another outside investigator, Allison Hernandez.
They were also asked, “Were both hired on a collaborative basis by you both? When were they hired? Can you please provide copies of their contracts? Did Ms. Powell interview any of the officers? Did she provide you with a preliminary report? Or was her investigation completed and you have her final report? Can you please share any other details of both investigators’ work for the City of Antioch and why Ms. Powell’s contract was terminated before completing the investigation?
They were then provided a copy of Rains’ letter and asked, “Were you ever contacted by either of them or any council members about the outside investigator? Were any findings by Ms. Powell shared with any of the council members? Were you directed, encouraged or pressured by any of the council members to terminate Ms. Powell’s contract and hire a different outside investigator?”
Smith was also asked if Ms. Powell quit because she was tired of him interfering in her investigation and giving her too much direction in conducting it, and if so or if not, to please provide what directions, if any, that he provided to Powell that were outside of what is written in her contract.
Following Rains’ response to the questions posed to him, additional questions were emailed after work hours on Monday asking Smith and Ford the following: “Is what he wrote correct that ‘the Chief suddenly got cut out of any role’ in the process? If so, why? Is it also correct that you only want four of the officers interviewed and the City is delaying investigator Allison Hernandez from conducting those interviews? If so, why?”
Neither responded prior to publication time.
Questions for First Outside Investigator Go Unanswered
Questions were emailed to outside investigator Powell on Monday, May 22 asking if she found there were no fire-able offenses and then her services ended last Monday, May 15 and then replaced by another outside investigator. Powell was also asked, “When were you hired by City Attorney Thomas L. Smith? Can you please provide a copy of your contract? Did you interview any of the officers? Did you provide a preliminary report? Or was your investigation completed? Can you please share any other details of your work for the City of Antioch and why your contract was terminated before completing the investigation?”
Powell was also asked if she quit because she grew tired of City Attorney Smith interfering in her investigation and giving too much direction in conducting it. She was also asked what other direction was provided to her outside of what was written in her contract with the City and if Smith was dissatisfied with your (preliminary) findings, if any.
The portion of Rains’ email was shared with Powell who was then asked if she was ever contacted by any council member.
Attempts to reach Powell by phone and email were unsuccessful prior to publication time.
Only Ogorchock, Barbanica Respond to Questions for Council Members
All five council members were asked via email if they have any response to Rains’ letter. Thorpe and Torres-Walker were asked specifically, to what is he referring in the final paragraph that they “‘engineered an intentional delay in having officers interviewed.’”
They were all asked if they had contacted the city attorney with instructions, directions or requests in the hiring of the outside investigator on the text scandal, if they know why the first investigator’s services ended and a different investigator was hired, and if they had received or seen a copy of either preliminary findings or a final report from either investigator.
When reached for comment and asked what she knew about the outside investigators and if she had received a preliminary or final report, District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock said, “This is the first I’ve heard of it. I didn’t know they had even hired one, yet. These things take a long time to happen. So, I’m not aware of any report or determination by the investigator.”
Later she wrote, “After reading and rereading this letter from Mr. Rains, it leaves me with several questions around the investigation as to why we would reject a request to interview the officers involved, why only 4 officers when there are more than that out on administrative leave.”
In response to the Herald’s questions Ogorchock wrote, “I have not, nor have I discussed this with our City Attorney. I would like to understand the reason (if true) as to why this investigator was let go, or did they no longer wish to work for the city. I have not, nor do I know of any such report existing.”
District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica was the only other one to respond before publication time, Monday evening. Asked again if he had contacted the city attorney about hiring the outside investigation he said, “About this, no. The city attorney’s office is in charge of hiring any investigator. I stay out of it. I’m giving them the space to do their job. I will be briefed as this evolves and when proper.”
“I do have a call into the city attorney and am awaiting his call, because I’ve had several questions raised from the public about hiring the investigators,” the former Pittsburg police lieutenant added.
“I believe that we should all be concerned with due process that this is done properly,” Barbanica stated.
5/23/23 UPDATE 2: After speaking with the city attorney, Barbanica shared Tuesday afternoon that Smith told him, “’the information surrounding the hiring of the two investigators is inaccurate.’ But I cannot get into further details.”
Question for DA, Senior Inspector
An email was sent Monday evening to Contra Costa DA’s Office PIO Ted Asregadoo asking if D.A. Diana Becton or the office’s Senior Inspector Wallace had a response to Rains’ claim that the reports were misleading and highly partisan.
5/23/23 UPDATE 1: Asregadoo responded Tuesday morning, “The letter you sent is from the POA’s legal representation and concerns the Antioch City Council’s administrative matters. As such, we really don’t have anything to say about its contents.”
City Follows Skelly Hearing Disciplinary Process, Council Members Have No Say
The City of Antioch follows the Skelly Hearing process which is like a Bill of Rights for city employees in California. According to the California Department of Human Resources’ Supervisors Guide to Addressing Poor Performance, the “Skelly Hearing is the name of the hearing the employee can ask for before the adverse action becomes effective to ensure no mistakes have been made by the department in taking the action. This hearing is a short, more informal due process-review of the department’s case and the employee’s defense. It is called a Skelly Hearing because the requirement was established through a court case entitled Skelly v .SPB.”
According to unlocklegal.com, “a Skelly hearing is better described as a pre-disciplinary due process meeting. This procedural meeting ensures that when an employee is facing disciplinary action, the accused employee is informed of the allegations, has an opportunity to refute the allegations, and has an opportunity to mitigate the allegations or rehabilitate their standing with their employer before any actual disciplinary action. It is a preliminary meeting that must take place in the case of an employee’s termination, demotion, suspension, reduction in pay, or transfer with an accompanying loss in pay.”
The city manager serves as the City’s Skelly Officer. The hiring and firing of all city employees starts and ends with the city manager who signs the papers for each staff member.
The city council as a whole or as individuals have no say in the process of determining which city workers, including police officers, will remain employed or be terminated. The Antioch City Council currently only has the authority to hire and fire the city manager and city attorney.
Please check back later for any other responses or updates to this report.
Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker rants at and about fellow Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock at the end of the April 25, 2023 council meeting. Video screenshot
Says fellow Councilwoman Ogorchock had “white privilege fits”, has “white fragility”
By Allen D. Payton
In a post on her official Facebook page on Thursday, May 18, 2023, Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker called for the immediate firing of “officers involved in the racist texting scandal”. In addition, she wrote, “I’ve been asked by some in the community why I am not currently supporting or attending events involving the police department. (See related articles here and here)
To ensure clarity, and why I will not, I am sharing directly with you on social media.
My reasoning for this stance is that I firmly believe that the officers involved in the racist texting scandal should have been immediately terminated.
To me, and many in the community, these efforts have been done in the past as an outlet for the community while leading to little or no change as it relates to the institution of policing. I too was once guilty of thinking some heart-felt dialogue would make an institutional difference when in reality it’s been more like one relationship at a time.
My position on this is not some political ploy to silence the community but rather an expression of my commitment to not ignore the deeply entrenched racist culture within the Antioch Police Department and the City as a whole.
Screenshot of post by Torres-Walker on her official Facebook page on Thursday, May 18, 2023.
To not address the obvious need to terminate the individuals who have breached their duty of trust to this community is an insult to every single resident of Antioch.
As a community, we shouldn’t be expected to condone a culture of racism and abuse that has completely betrayed our trust to move swiftly past the harm.
To those that will want to turn this position into me being anti-police or censoring the community. I am not. I am against supporting the obvious wrongs of individuals in APD and unproven practices in our pursuit of justice and a City where policing services are none [sic] biased. Rather than seeking to make me the villain, you should want the same, for those of us who live here together.”
At the end of the city council meeting on Tuesday, April 25, 2023, during the period reserved for Council Communications and Future Agenda Items, Torres-Walker injected additional racially charged comments, by using the time to rant and take a swipe at District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock (and local media) saying, “I want to say this respectfully and with some compassion that Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock’s investigative powers only work when she is coming for progressives and radical progressives on this city council. It is unfortunate that those wonder powers didn’t activate when people of color, Black people and poor people in this community have been coming to this council for years demanding accountability for her beloved police force. Lori, you say you don’t hear stories, you don’t watch the news, you don’t read newspapers beyond the opinion of two of the most popular fearmongers in our city, but you demand to be invited to a meeting that you, to have information about a meeting you weren’t invited to? Even last year when Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock had her white privilege fits right here, in this public space, I didn’t say a word. I’m growing tired and I thank God that I have patience because I have seen some growth. But white fragility doesn’t move me at all. And so, if you want to be a part of something don’t keep putting yourself outside of things that you should be on the right side of.”
Ogorchock did not respond to Torres-Walker’s comments and merely asked a question of city staff on an unrelated matter. (See council meeting video at 2:53:54 mark)
Mayor Lamar Thorpe and Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker were absent from the May 9, 2023 council meeting during the Consent Calender portion. Thorpe arrived an hour late. Video screenshot.
After Ogorchock switched positions in March; Thorpe hour late to meeting without explanation
By Allen D. Payton
With the final vote to revise the Antioch tobacco products sales ban ordinance on the Consent Calendar during Tuesday night’s meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker was absent and Mayor Lamar Thorpe was an hour late to the meeting. That left the vote up to the other three council members, including District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson who opposed the changes. During the March 28th meeting District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock reversed her previous support for the entire ban, joining Torres-Walker and District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica. The motion to adopt the revised ordinance failed on a 2-1 vote with Wilson voting against.
According to the staff report on the agenda item, Section C. of the current ordinance reads, “No tobacco retailer shall sell, offer for sale, possess with the intent to sell, offer in exchange for any form of consideration, or provide at no cost any of the following: (1) Any package of fewer than twenty little cigars; (2) Any package of fewer than six cigars; and (3) Any package of cigarettes, little cigars, or cigars at a price that is less than ten dollars per package, including applicable fees and taxes.”
Retailers had complained to the city council that they were unfairly targeted and there wasn’t a level playing field with retailers in neighboring cities. As a result, that section was removed in the revised ordinance which the council passed 3-2.
But the failure of the second reading of the ordinance leaves that section in place and any revisions to the ordinance requires the council to start the process again.
A separate effort to remove the ban on the sale or transfer to family members of tobacco retailers in the city was sent back to the Planning Commission for review and a recommendation vote. That will return to the city council for a decision at a future meeting.
The original gerrymander in 1812 of a Massachusetts State Senate district approved by Gov. Elbridge Gerry. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
AB 764 and AB 1248 would help end gerrymandering in the state as was done in Antioch and bring local redistricting into alignment with statewide and congressional redistricting standards
SACRAMENTO – A package of statewide redistricting reform bills that would help end gerrymandering and the abuse of local redistricting processes in California passed out of the Assembly Local Government Committee on Wednesday. AB 764 (Bryan) and AB 1248 (Bryan and Allen) have recently gained a groundswell of support, pushing the bills past a massive legislative hurdle and inching them closer to becoming law. It would stop what happened in Antioch by the council majority with Districts 2, 3 and 4. (See related article)
“The abuse of our redistricting processes by incumbent politicians is a statewide issue that requires statewide solutions if California is to build a fully inclusive and representative democracy that works for everyone,” said Jonathan Mehta Stein, Executive Director of California Common Cause. “Informed by evaluations of over 100 of local jurisdictions’ redistricting processes and conversations with dozens of community-based organizations, AB 764 and AB 1248 make this vision a reality.”
Backed by civil rights, good government, and community organizations, these bills would empower communities in the redistricting process and would help end gerrymandering at the local level by strengthening current redistricting protections and establishing independent redistricting commissions for larger local jurisdictions.
AB 764 amends 2019’s FAIR MAPS Act (FMA), a bill that requires cities and counties to use standardized, fair redistricting criteria that prioritize communities when drawing district lines. The bill strengthens the FMA’s redistricting criteria, public engagement requirements, and transparency measures, and would extend its protections to additional local governments, like school boards. It would also prohibit incumbent-protection gerrymandering and would give the public greater control over a process that fundamentally should belong to them.
Under AB 1248, all counties, cities, school districts, and community college districts with a population over 300,000 would be required to establish an independent redistricting commission before the 2030 redistricting cycle that meets their own local needs. If they do not act on their own, they would be required to utilize a more detailed default commission structure outlined in state law.
“Comprehensive redistricting reform is a long-term solution for building truly representative elections and a democracy that includes everyone,” saidLaurel Brodzinsky, California Common Cause’s Legislative Director. “The momentum of AB 764 and AB 1248 shows there’s a real chance that California can end the abuse of our redistricting processes and set the national standard for prioritizing people over politicians.”
AB 764 is sponsored by California Common Cause, League of Women Voters of California, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. AB 1248 is sponsored by California Common Cause, ACLU of Southern California, Asian Law Caucus, and League of Women Voters of California.
Registered Support for AB 764:
AAPIs for Civic Empowerment Education Fund, ACLU California Action, AFSCME, Alameda County Coalition for Fair Redistricting, Alliance San Diego, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, California Environmental Voters (formerly CLCV), Catalyst California, Central Coast Alliance United for A Sustainable Economy, California Common Cause, Communities for A New California (CNC), Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ), Community Health Councils, Courage California, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Indivisible CA Statestrong, Indivisible Marin, Initiate Justice, Initiate Justice Action, Inland Equity Partnership, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of The San Francisco Bay Area, League of Women Voters of California, Oakland Rising Action, OC Action, Peninsula Family Service, San Francisco Rising, Secure Justice, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, The Resistance Northridge-indivisible, The Santa Monica Democratic Club, Thrive, the Alliance of Nonprofits for San Mateo County, Voices for Progress, Young Women’s Freedom Center
Registered Support for AB 1248:
Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Southern California, California Common Cause, League of Women Voters of California, AAPIs for Civic Empowerment Education Fund, ACLU California Action, AFSCME, Alameda County Coalition for Fair Redistricting, Alliance San Diego, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Southern California, California Environmental Voters (formerly CLCV), Central Coast Alliance United for A Sustainable Economy, Community Health Councils, Courage California, Dolores Huerta Foundation, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Indivisible CA Statestrong, Initiate Justice, Initiate Justice Action, Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective, Inland Empire United, Inland Equity Partnership, OC Action, San Francisco Rising, Santa Monica Democratic Club, The Resistance Northridge-Indivisible
About Common Cause
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process.
Portions of Legal bill #2 3261063 dated Feb. 21, 2023 showing billing for private meetings with Mayor Thorpe and Mayor Pro Tem Torres-Walker. Source: City of Antioch
By Allen D. Payton
Following the revelation in tonight’s Antioch City Council meeting agenda, that City Manager Con Johnson hired an outside attorney without proper permission of the city attorney, the first two invoices from the law firm were provided by Acting City Manager Forrest Ebbs today following multiple requests of city staff. The invoices show over $37,000 of work done including for closed session meetings with the city council and private meetings with Mayor Lamar Thorpe and Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker. (See Item O. under Consent Calendar)
The invoices show work began on Oct. 17 under the auspices of a “procedurally invalid” contract, according to the city staff report on the item, before Johnson signed the contract on Nov. 4. Also, the first interaction Gregory Rolen – partner in the San Francisco law firm of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP – had with the council was on Oct 25, 2022 for “Travel to and from closed session/attend the closed session” billed at 3.6 hours. He charges a rate of $410 per hour.
Page 2 of first invoice from outside attorney dated Jan. 12, 2023. Source: City of Antioch
In addition, almost all of the first bill dated Jan. 12, 2023, for a total of $30,107.20 covered work on the city attorney’s contract, statutory powers, “Rules of Professional Responsibility”, ethical responsibilities and obligations, and work with the city council and Human Resources Director Ana Chavez.
The second invoice dated Feb. 21, 2023 for a total of $7,231.75 included a meeting with Thorpe and Torres-Walker that lasted almost three hours. The invoice shows “01/10/2023 Meeting with Mayor and Vice Mayor” for 2.9 hours. Plus, it shows travel to and from meetings, attendance at the council meeting on Jan. 24, 2023, and another “Teleconference with mayor regarding regulation” for 0.7 hours on Jan. 31, 2023.
That’s in addition to the private half-hour-long meeting Rolen had with Thorpe on Feb. 2, 2023, described as “Teleconference with mayor regarding representation city manager” as previously reported.
Page 3 of first invoice from outside attorney dated Jan. 12, 2023. Source: City of Antioch
Questions for City Attorney, HR Director
In response to the information in the first two invoices, questions were sent Tuesday afternoon to City Attorney Smith and Human Resources Director Ana Cortez. They were asked, “Since outside attorney Greg Rolen did work regarding the city attorney’s contract can you please provide his current contract? Was it renewed for another three years in 2022 and does it run through 2025?”
Cortez was asked why she worked with the outside attorney and if the city manager directed her to do so. She was also asked if she consulted with Smith to determine if it was proper before incurring the cost to the City.
Smith was asked, since the work was done under a ‘procedurally invalid’ contract, was the work product destroyed or must it be, or can it still be used, and what was the final product from Rolen’s work.
Page from second invoice from outside attorney dated Feb. 21, 2023. Source: City of Antioch
More Questions for Thorpe, Walker, Other Councilmembers
An email was sent to all five council members late Tuesday afternoon asking, “Now that city staff provided the first two invoices from attorney Greg Rolen of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, do you have any comment? Did any of you ask why an outside attorney was meeting with you in closed session?”
It was pointed out to them information from the first invoice showing, “12/04/2022 Initiate legal research concerning statutory powers of city Attorney” for 0.90 hours and on “12/05/2022 Locate, review and analyze city Attorney employment agreement” for 1.90 hours.
They were asked, “did the council ask Rolen to do that? Why? Did you not think to look at the Feb. 5, 2019 City Council Agenda item when Thomas was hired? It shows his original contract lasted three years. See Item #10 – 020519.pdf (antiochca.gov) Assuming it was renewed in 2022, it’s safe to say it was done so for another three years through 2025.
Thorpe and Walker were then asked, “why did you have a meeting with Rolen on Jan. 10, 2023 for almost three hours, separate from the other three council members? What did you discuss with him, which is not privileged as it was done under a “procedurally invalid” contract? Why weren’t the other council members included? Shouldn’t you pay for the cost of that meeting totaling $1,189 rather than the taxpayers?”
They all were asked, “why did you need Rolen to attend the council meeting for one hour on Jan. 24? Was that just for the Closed Session? Who invited him to do so? What was discussed with him?”
Finally, Thorpe was asked, “why did you have another teleconference meeting with Rolen on Jan. 31 ‘regarding regulation’ separate from the other four council members? What regulation did you discuss?”
An effort to reach Rolen for comment about the city attorney’s claim the contract was “procedurally invalid” and to ask him questions about his work with Johnson, Cortez and the city council was unsuccessful prior to publication time.
Please check back for any responses or other updates to this report.
In response to the release of the DA’s report on racist and other offensive text messages by Antioch Police Officers, Mayor Lamar Thorpe has called a special council meeting for next Tuesday, April 18, 2023 to discuss three police department matters. The meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. Because it’s a special meeting there will be no general Public Comments allowed at the beginning or end. The public can only speak on the three items on the agenda which are listed as follows:
1. AUDIT OF THE ANTIOCH POLICE DEPARTMENT’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS PROCESS Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council discuss, receive public comments, and provide direction to staff.
2. AUDIT OF THE ANTIOCH POLICE DEPARTMENT’S HIRING AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council discuss, receive public comments, and provide direction to staff.
3. EQUITY AUDIT OF THE ANTIOCH POLICE DEPARTMENT Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council discuss, receive public comments, and provide direction to staff.
No details are provided for each of the agenda items.
Thorpe was asked why the meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. when most people who commute to work will not be in Antioch, yet which will limit public participation and why not hold it at the regular 7:00 p.m. time of regular meetings. He was also asked what an Equity Audit means. He did not respond by publication time.
