Neither will say why; contributed $500 to Becton’s re-election campaign last year

Councilwoman blames police, claiming “my family and I have gone through a hell… we feared for our safety from the very people who on some level we trust to protect us from harm.”

“Antioch police officers are not targeting Councilwoman Torres-Walker.” – Rick Hoffman, President, APOA

Council candidates Motts, Gibson-Gray support release of body cam video; police dep’t, city attorney continue to stonewall release claiming it’s “privileged”

By Allen D. Payton

The Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office confirmed on Thursday, Sept. 1 that the charge against Antioch District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker for interfering with police outside her home on October 3, 2021, had been dropped in August. Neither DA Diana Becton nor Torres-Walker will say why.

Asked about the decision, CCDA Public Information Officer Ted Asregadoo simply responded, “The misdemeanor case against Tamisha Torres-Walker was dismissed on 8/8/2022 in the Interest of Justice or Furtherance of Justice (PC 1385). The DA’s Office isn’t commenting on the reason for the dismissal.”

According to reports, police were dispatched to Torres-Walker’s Antioch home shortly after midnight Saturday night, following calls to APD of noise complaints including dirt bikes riding in the street, loud music and gunshots. When officers arrived multiple shell casings were found in front of her home, she emerged from the house, appeared intoxicated, confronted and berated the officers, and interfered in their investigation, including taking the papers of a woman to whom they were speaking to at the scene, from one of the officer’s hand.

The official statements from the Antioch Police following a Public Records Act request by the Herald on Nov. 8, 2021, read, “Officers responded to the 500 block of Gary Ave on October 3, 2021 at 0027 hours, for a report of a loud party and shots heard, in the area.  There were no victims, no injuries, and no property loss determined at the time of officers’ arrival.  As mentioned, this is an open and continuing investigation at this time.”

Torres-Walker was later pressured by Mayor Lamar Thorpe and fellow council members to resign from her position as chair of the council’s Police Oversight Committee. There were also calls by Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica and others for her to resign from the city council. Torres-Walker chose to do the former and remain on the council. (See related articles here and here)

Then, in a response to a second request in March 2022, Antioch Police Captain Trevor Schnitzius wrote, “the requested records are statutorily exempt from disclosure, at this time” due to the ongoing investigation. But he further wrote, “the public interest served by not disclosing clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” APD response to T Torres-Walker video PRA 032822

Torres-Walker Claims She and Family “Feared” Antioch Police

Last year, Torres-Walker contributed $500 to DA Diana Becton’s re-election campaign. In another, recent news report she was quoted as saying Antioch Police were targeting her family. Then, on Friday, September 9, 2022, Torres-Walker posted comments on her official Facebook page further attempting to turn on the police both the Oct. 3, 2021 incident at her home and the previous Dec. 2020 incident with her sons, for which she’s being sued by the two APD officers who were involved. (See related article)

“It took me some time to respond to residents and the press because I want to be sensitive to the challenges our police department faces related to multiple outside investigations. I also needed time to reflect with my family and reaffirm my commitment to reimagining public safety here at home in Antioch,” Torres-Walker wrote. “I moved to Antioch more than 8 years ago and even then the silence coming from CITY HALL related to police misconduct and use of force was deafening. It wasn’t till May of 2020 that residents of Antioch some of whom for years have been crying out for help even heard a peep.

This is why one of my first tasks as a newly elected leader was to get straight to work fighting for a police oversight body to foster transparency and accountability as it relates to policing serves. I worked tirelessly on the Council to establish the new department of public safety and community resources.

For the last several months, my family and I have gone through a hell that I wouldn’t wish on anyone’s family, as we feared for our safety from the very people who on some level we trust to protect us from harm.

What is even more appalling is the fact that what I went through is exactly what I hear from many of our residents daily.

We cannot expect Antioch to be its very best when large segments of our population are afraid to speak out.

I finally can leave a series of sad unfortunate incidents behind me and continue working to create an Antioch where everyone feels safe.

Despite what some try to say about me, I fully support public safety measures that meet the needs of all our residents.

Antioch is no longer a small sundown town. We are the second most diverse City in the Bay Area and we deserve policing services that reflect that diversity.

To our residents, I will not stop working until everyone feels safe not just from state-sanctioned violence but from community-based violence as well.

Leadership focused on people and solutions, not just the fight.”

Police Body Cam Video Again Requested from Antioch Police, City Attorney

On Saturday, September 10, 2022, another request to the Antioch Police Department for release of the police body camera footage was made. Interim Police Chief Steve Ford, copying Captains Tony Morefield and Trevor Schnitzius, and City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, was asked, “now that the charges against Councilwoman Torres-Walker for the incident at her home on Oct. 3, 2021, have been dropped by the DA’s office and the investigation has concluded, will you release the officer(s) body dash camera footage of the incident?”

Questions for Torres-Walker Go Unanswered

In addition, Torres-Walker was sent questions on Saturday, Sept. 10 asking, “Are your comments in response to the DA’s Office dropping the charges against you of interfering with police during the Oct. 3, 2021 incident outside your home, as well as the charges against both your sons being dropped in the Dec. 2020 dirt bike chase and traffic stop incident?

Regarding the Oct. 2021 incident, do you know why the charges were dropped? Did anyone at the DA’s Office give you their reason?

What is your side of the story of what occurred that night? Did you grab something from the officer’s hand and interfere with that officer’s questioning of another person? Were you inebriated at the time as has been reported? Do you believe you did anything wrong? If so, will you apologize to both the police officer(s), the department and the public? If not, if you don’t believe you did anything wrong, why did you resign as chair from the council’s Police​ Oversight Committee?

Do you really believe you and your family have been targeted by Antioch Police officers and that they knew who your sons were during the dirt bike chase and traffic stop incident in Dec. 2020 and in responding to gunshots outside your home and noise complaints during the Oct. 2021 incident?

Do you know if either or both of the incidents involved any of the officers that are currently under investigation by the FBI and DA’s Office?

For the purpose of transparency do you support the release of the police officer(s) body camera video footage of the​ Oct. 2021 incident in front of your home?”

The incumbent councilwoman did not respond by publication time.

Questions for Police Officers Association President

In response to Torres-Walker’s latest Facebook comments, questions were also sent to Antioch Police Officers Association (APOA) President Rick Hoffman asking the following: “Have Antioch officers been targeting the councilwoman and her family members?

Did the officers who pursued her sons riding on their dirt bikes on city streets in Dec. 2020 and pulled over the younger one, know they were Torres-Walker’s sons while in pursuit of them?

Did the officer or officers who responded to the incident in Oct. 2021 do so because they knew it was her house before they arrived and if so, is that why they went there?

Does your organization support the release of the body camera video footage from that incident?

Are the two officers, Andrea Rodriguez and Calvin Prieto, who are suing the City and Torres-Walker still on medical leave?

Are either they or any of the officers involved in the Oct. 2021 incident part of those under investigation by the FBI and DA’s Office?

Do you have any additional comments regarding the councilwoman’s latest comments posted on Facebook?”

APOA President Hoffman Responds

APOA President Rick Hoffman responded, “No, Antioch police officers are not targeting Councilwoman Torres-Walker. To do so would not only be foolish, but illegal and would be condemned by the APOA.

To the best of my knowledge, the officers involved in the pursuit of Councilwoman Torres’ sons did not know they were her sons while they were in pursuit of them.

I can say that the officers involved in the response to Councilwoman Torres’ home were responding to a call for service. They were not targeting her or her home.

The APOA supports accountability and transparency for all members of city government. This would include members of the APOA as well as city leaders. APOA members were excited to have finally been given body worn cameras and are eager for the public to see the good work that we do. The APOA would fully support the release of the bodycam footage during the incident at Councilwoman Torres-Walker’s home as we believe it would be important to further the discussion of transparency and accountability.

To the best of my knowledge, Officers Rodriguez and Prieto have been on medical leave since late last year.

I cannot comment on whether or not any officers involved in the FBI investigation responded to Councilwoman Torres-Walker’s home in October 2021. I do not have information as to the extent of that investigation however, I believe that the release of the body camera footage will show all the officers involved and their conduct.

I do not have any comments on Councilwoman Torres’ post. I would only like to reiterate that the APOA is eager to have a good working relationship with all city officials, including Councilwoman Torres-Walker, and hope to better open up the lines of communication so we can work together in the future.”

Both Challengers Also Support Release of Police Video

Both of Torres-Walker’s challengers in the November election, Joy Motts and Diane Gibson-Gray, support the release of the police body camera video of the incident at the District 1 councilwoman’s home in Oct. 2021.

“We’ve gone through all this legislation for transparency and accountability for civilians and our police department. I just don’t understand why that information is not available in particular situations,” Motts said. “I asked for body cams before I left council. Nobody supported it, then. This is all part of the reformations of holding our police to higher standards.”

“I think it’s a privilege to be on council and you have to hold yourself to the highest standards and accountability,” she continued. “The truth is it’s inconvenient right now. That’s how it appears to me. There’s just not equity, truth and accountability.”

“If nothing went wrong, if the body cam footage substantiates dropping the charges, then why not make it available?” Motts asked.

“I would like to know from the city attorney is transparency discretionary and who gets to make that decision,” she added.

When asked about the video camera footage Gibson-Gray said, “I’ve requested it myself and was denied. It’s basically not available to the public. I’m naturally for it.”

Antioch Police Admit to Having Video, Won’t Release Claiming It’s “Privileged”

On Monday afternoon, Sept. 12, the Antioch Police Department’s Police Records Supervisor Amanda Nelson issued, on Interim Chief Ford’s letterhead, the response to the Herald’s request for release of the video included the following reasons for denying the request: “Consistent with its obligation under the CPRA (California Public Records Act), the City advises it has conducted a reasonable search and determined that we possess identifiable records that fall within the scope of your request. The City further advises that it has determined that the requested records are statutorily exempt from disclosure pursuant to: (1) Government Code (section) 6254(a), as “[p]reliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency memoranda that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of business”; (2) Government Code (section) 6254(f), as “[r]ecords of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, … any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency’; (3) Government Code (section) 6254(k), as “[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege,” because the records are privileged under the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege and/or the deliberative process privilege, the closed session privilege; and (4) Government Code sections 6254.3 and 6254.21 as home address, telephone number, and birth dates of public employees/elected or appointed officials.” APD response to T Torres-Walker video PRA 091222

However, the letter then reads, “Consistent with its obligation under the CPRA, the City provides the following information: 10/3/21 12:27 am at *** Gary Ave. Reports of a loud party in the area and 5-6 shots heard.”

It ends with, “The following person is responsible for this determination after consult with the office of the City Attorney: AMANDA NELSON, POLICE RECORDS SUPERVISOR.”

Additional Questions for Interim Police Chief, City Attorney

Additional questions were then sent to Ford, Smith, copying Morefield, Schnitzius and Nelson asking, “Instead of leaving the​ decision up to a lower-level staffer, such as the Police Records Supervisor to determine what will and won’t be released, thus playing the Pontius Pilate game of washing your hands of it, why don’t you make the leadership decision and release the video which you know is the​ right thing to do for the purpose of transparency for the​ benefit of the public you claim you want the Antioch Police Department to serve and to avoid the appearance of both showing favoritism to a sitting council member facing re-election and a cover up, both coordinated with the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office?

Why did on one hand the APD inform me, previously in Nov. 2021, they couldn’t release the video due to the ongoing investigation, then in March 2022, Captain Schnitzius wrote, ‘the requested records are statutorily exempt from disclosure, at this time’. But he further wrote, ‘the public interest served by not disclosing clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record’, yet now, after the investigation is over and the charges have been dropped, the reason is conveniently changed to continue to conceal from the public what they have a right to see and know? How does not disclosing the video clearly outweigh the public interest in disclosing it? Isn’t just the opposite?

Instead of hiding behind what you’ve determined is ‘statutorily exempt’ why not simply release the video and let the public decide whether or not they think either the councilwoman or the officer(s) acted appropriately?

What is the point of having police officer body cameras if the videos are rarely if ever released since only one has been, so far in over a year of operating them?

How are the records ‘privileged under attorney-client privilege’, ‘attorney work product privilege’, ‘the deliberative process privilege’ or a ‘closed session privilege’ by any means since the city attorney did and does not represent Councilwoman Torres-Walker in this incident which occurred at her private residence and her actions were outside of her official duties, and aren’t a matter of closed session? Who is it that is participating in the so-called ‘deliberative process’ preventing you from releasing the video?

Ford and Smith were also asked, “are you claiming the video footage from Antioch Police officer body cameras aren’t retained? Or are you claiming they’re not part of “the ordinary course of business” when they’re supposedly automatically deployed whenever an officer leaves his patrol vehicle?”

Additional Public Records Act Requests Made

Another Public Records Act request was then made on Monday night, Sept. 12, 2022, of any and all reports by any and all Antioch Police officers who responded to any and all calls for service at Tamisha Torrs-Walker’s home (at *** Gary Avenue in Antioch, California) on Oct. 3, 2021.

Then due to reports that there have been multiple police calls for service at the councilwoman’s Antioch home, a separate Public Records Act was made Monday night, for the same type of aforementioned reports for any other Antioch Police call for service at any other time at Tamisha Torres-Walker’s current or any other, previous Antioch home(s) from Jan. 1, 2020, through today.

The department has 10 days to respond and can delay their response by up to another 14 days.

Please check back later for any updates to this report including responses from Torres-Walker, Ford or Smith.

Note: Torres-Walker’s home address was intentionally not included in this article and redacted in the letter from APD by the Herald.

By Allen D. Payton

On June 29, 2022, Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe entered pleas of not guilty to the charges of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and DUI with Blood Alcohol Content of .08% or higher, for his arrest in the early morning of March 19. A Readiness Conference has been scheduled for Sept. 29 with a trial date set for October 12 at 8:30 a.m. in the criminal division of the Wakefield Taylor Courthouse in Martinez. (See related articles here and here)

Since in a video Thorpe posted on his official Facebook page on March 19, he admitted to having one drink with dinner, he was asked, via email in August why he didn’t plead guilty, accept his punishment and get this behind him for the benefit of himself and the city. He was also asked what he was hoping to accomplish by a jury trial, if he was hoping to be found not guilty and isn’t the trial just a waste of taxpayer funds and the court’s time. Thorpe did not respond.

An effort to reach Thorpe’s attorney, listed as Greg Scanlon, was unsuccessful. However, Walnut Creek-based criminal defense attorney Peter Johnson, the co-author of the California DUI Defense book, was asked why someone who admitted publicly that they had an alcoholic beverage prior to an arrest for DUI would plead not guilty and take their case to trial.

“A drink with dinner doesn’t put you under the influence,” he stated. “There’s no law against drinking and driving. He didn’t admit to the crime. They have to prove he was guilty.”

“Chemical testing for alcohol is not necessarily reliable. There are errors involved with the testing,” Johnson continued. “Just because a person blows into a machine, that’s not necessarily an accurate number. Why should somebody plead guilty or no contest if they didn’t commit a crime?”

“There are substantial problems with estimating a person’s blood alcohol level from either a blood or a breath test,” he added.

Following is the information provided to the Herald about the case: Details.Lamar Thorpe DUI Case # 01-22-00647

Thorpe, Lamar Anthony
Description Statute Level Date:

1VC23152(a)-M: Driving Under Influence of Alcohol 000214658023152(a) Misdemeanor 03/19/2022

2VC23152(b)-M: Driving Under Influence of Alcohol 000214658123152(b) Misdemeanor 03/19/2022
01-22-00647 | The People of the State of California vs. Thorpe, Lamar Anthony
Case Number:01-22-00647
Court: Criminal – Martinez-Wakefield Taylor Courthouse
File Date: 05/20/2022
Case Type: Misdemeanor
Case Status: Own Recognizance
06/29/2022 Plea
Judicial Officer :Stark, Nancy Davis
1 – VC23152(a)-M: Driving Under Influence of Alcohol 0002146580
Not Guilty
2 – VC23152(b)-M: Driving Under Influence of Alcohol 0002146581
Not Guilty
05/20/2022 Initial Complaint Filed
05/23/2022 Notice to Appear
05/23/2022 District Attorney’s Arraignment Position
06/15/2022 Miscellaneous
Comment – Documents copied and sent to, GREG SCANLON.
06/29/2022 Arraignment on Complaint
Original Type – Arraignment on Complaint
Judicial Officer – Stark, Nancy Davis
Hearing Time – 8:30 AM
Result – Held
09/28/2022 Readiness Conference
Judicial Officer – Hiramoto, Joni T
Hearing Time – 8:30 AM
10/12/2022 Misdo Jury Trial
Judicial Officer – Hiramoto, Joni T
Hearing Time – 8:30 AM

Instead of $6 million and no General Fund money; Torres-Walker, Wilson won’t say why they didn’t attend

By Allen D. Payton

During their August 9, 2022, Antioch City Council meeting, the three council members in attendance approved spending $4 million in state and federal funds on a transitional housing program in addition to the one previously approved at the Executive Inn on E. 18th Street. The original proposal was to spend $12 million for the program at the motel previously approved by Mayor Lamar Thorpe and Districts 1 and 4 Councilwomen Tamisha Torres-Walker and Monica Wilson, who were absent. (See related article)

Both councilwomen were asked the next day why they missed the meeting but neither responded.

The plan included purchasing the motel, and according to the staff report, the council considered committing $6 million in city funds, yet to be budgeted, as matching funds for an application for funds from Round 3 of the California Department of Housing & Community Development Homekey Program.

On May 10, 2022, the City Council authorized staff to pursue a Homekey application for interim housing associated with 515 East 18th Street, the location of the Executive Inn. But because the City was unable to negotiate acceptable terms for a purchase, Council support was requested for a change in approach to the City’s pursuit of State funds.

The city will instead lease the motel and has moved forward on terms with the owner.

The staff report explained the new approach which included identifying “available city-owned parcels for interim and/or permanent supportive housing opportunities for Antioch’s unsheltered residents.” It “involves the City’s solicitation of a developer partner who, once selected, will jointly apply to the State of California for funding to accomplish interim and/or permanent supportive housing in alignment and coordination with Contra Costa County’s homelessness response system. It is noted that a key distinction of interim housing is a 15-year covenant versus a 55-year covenant associated with permanent supportive housing. In either or both arrangements, participation in the Contra Costa County Continuum of Care (CoC) and Coordinated Entry System are required.” Homeless Transitional Housing program ACC080922

The new approach “intends to inspire creativity in the development community,” Assistant City Manager Rosana Bayon Moore stated.”

“This is an incredible opportunity…it’s taken us awhile to get to this point,” said local homeless advocate Andrew Becker. “But Homekey is a grant opportunity that develops housing. We rely on developers to come in and provide opportunities for our community and we’ve seen its non-existence out here in East County.”

However, a 394-unit, low- to moderate-income housing apartment project was approved by the city council in 2019 and built by a developer off East 18th Street in Antioch. (See related article)

“The state has given us an opportunity to capitalize off their dollars,” he continued. “This is a different structure…and what we can create, here can be lasting beyond what the Executive Inn is or can be in the future. These are lasting covenants for housing.”

Three other residents spoke in favor of the additional program.

Council Discussion and Decision

During the council discussion on the item, District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock asked, “can we use ARPA funds on Homekey projects?”

“We would have the ability to use ARPA funds in connection with this work, as long as the timeframe is within the eligibility period,” Bayon Moore responded.

“I’m hugely for this. I see all the properties listed. I’d like to add L Street to that list,” Ogorchock continued. “I think Homekey grant can help us build homes for vets and seniors, along with the homeless, and it can help those most vulnerable not to become homeless.”

“There is more money, and I gave that report at the last meeting, from the governor and the funds that were now available,” she stated. “So, I hope we go after more of those funds.”

Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica then asked Bayon Moore, “On the $6 million, is that a one-time all in or is there going be more in the future?”

“The intention would be to identify a ceiling, a financial commitment that we would incorporate into the solicitation, so that when we signal to the development community that the city is supportive of the effort, that those dollars are available to support the project,” the assistant city manager responded. “Now depending upon the project…six million is the cap.”

“My stance on this is we’re spending a lot of money. This council is going through a lot of money,” Barbanica stated. “We’re opening new departments, where we just spent $2.5 million on the Executive Inn, we have a commitment to Motel 6 which is per use, and I understand it’s a more cost effective way to go. But we’re not funding things like the Emergency Operations Center. We’re not funding things like the pool at the water park which is a safety issue. We’re not doing that, but we can spend $2.5 million on the Executive Inn and we can commit to another $6 million but we don’t have an Emergency Operations Center that’s up to date. I do not support this.”

Ogorchock then said, “I know this council wasn’t here when Tabora Gardens was built. But we did the same thing with $1 million…that we had to pledge…and we did commit those funds.”

“And I understand what you’re saying, and I agree 110% with you,” she said to Barbanica. “And I believe those items that you brought up were on the ARPA funds to possibly be spent on those. But again, if I’m looking at ARPA funds and we can use ARPA funds with Homekey then I think this is a doable project.”

“The state is coming up with quite a bit more money…there’s a lot of money that’s coming forth,” Ogorchock continued. “So

“There’s further nuance, and we may not end up spending $6 million because a developer will say ‘I will eat up those costs’,” Thorpe said.

“Would there be possibility to lower this dollar amount and not commit to the six million?” Barbanica asked. “Andrew had mentioned two million to commit out of ARPA funds.”

“I don’t think today, we’re setting parameters for an RFQ,” Thorpe responded. “If a developer responds and says, ‘I can meet all of that,’ we’ll have another one of these and we’ll decide then. I think we’re saying we’re willing to commit up to $6 million.”

Bayon Moore then explained “one small dimension of that. The reason for the ceiling is for us to signal to the world of developers is the city is committed to bringing this online…not to exceed $6 million. If something comes below that, that’s fantastic.”

“What we did internally is work to establish a figure that we could defend,” she continued. “We looked at some…financial models and we came to the conclusion that $6 million was a safe figure to pledge. The market will ultimately speak to us whether or not that value is one that produces a partnership.”

“We just spent $2.5 million…and now we’re looking at committing to six,” Barbanica stated. “I cannot support a $6 million commitment even if it doesn’t come in at that.”

“If we are to lower the amount to maybe $2 million?” Ogorchock asked Barbanica. “It still leaves the ARPA funds on the table. I agree with you. I will fight for the EOC and the pool to get those items done because they’re safety issues.”

“If we were to at least reduce it to two million to start there would that be something that’s doable?” Ogorchock further asked.

“Specifically pulling it from ARPA funds and not the city’s general budget?” Barbanica asked in response.

“Yes,” the councilwoman responded.

“Yes,” he responded.

The council then took up all three matters associated with the agenda item, including the solicitation for the city-owned parcels, recognizing that the city land could be the location or privately owned, the pledge of the city’s financial commitment set at a ceiling of $2 million from ARPA funds and the council’s support of pursuing Homekey.

Ogorchock tried to get the city owned lots on L Street near the police department added to the list of parcels.

“That’s going to be Veterans Park,” Thorpe said.

“Not that I’m aware of,” Ogorchock responded.

“They came in and spoke to us and we gave direction,” Thorpe stated.

Ogorchock agreed to not including the L Street parcels.

Following one last effort by the city’s homeless consultant, Focus Strategies, to get the council to commit to $6 million, a motion was made by Ogorchock, seconded by Barbanica to approve the proposal with a $2 million cap and it passed on a 3-0 vote after Thorpe said, “No. Just kidding. Yes.”

“The funds can either be used for interim and permanent supportive housing,” Bayon Moore later explained. “The application will be jointly done by the city and a developer,”

The hope is to leverage the local funds and/or the value of the city-owned properties to obtain the state grant funds.

“They’re not necessarily dollar for dollar match,” she added.

Nor approve a police recruitment incentive program during special Friday afternoon meeting

 “What keeps good policing is leadership.” “…we’re not in a good position in the City of Antioch” – Interim Police Chief Ford, also says force down to 38 on patrol

By Allen D. Payton

Following outcry from two council members and all four other challengers in this year’s elections, the vote by the Antioch City Council to appoint interim city manager Con Johnson to the permanent position as called for by Mayor Lamar Thorpe on Monday, did not occur on Friday afternoon. (See related article)

Before they entered closed session during their 4:30 p.m. closed session on August 26, 2022, the council members heard two public comments about the matter, one vehemently against the idea and the other in support.

Resident Mark Jordan was the first to speak scathingly saying, “I cannot believe what is going on. The city council is a clown car on fire.”

“You’re going to hire a man who is absolutely unqualified and to have an unopen, non-transparent process,” he continued. “You should be appointing that person, right there,” pointing to Assistant City Manager Rosanna Bayon Moore, seated where Johnson, who was not in attendance, usually sits.

“But maybe she isn’t Black enough for you. Like Tammany Brooks wasn’t Black enough for you,” Jordan stated. “It’s unconscionable what is happening. I had dinner with Tammany Brooks and his wife in March and I asked him about what’s happening in Antioch. He said, ‘Sometimes a person will burn down an entire kingdom in order to rule over the ashes.’ That is what is happening with the mayor. He is a narcissistic, sociopath.”

“As for Con Johnson, I ran the background report,” Jordan shared. ‘You looked over the bankruptcies, the foreclosures, the judgments. That’s just what’s public record. What’s not public record is the employee complaints against him.”

“You should all be ashamed if you vote to do this. Open the process up or hire that person,” he concluded.

Ralph Hernandez spoke next, saying, “I do support him for the appointment to become the permanent city manager.”

“The city manager has been very professional, courteous. Give the guy a chance. If he doesn’t work, fire him,” he stated. “My wife and I support his permanent appointment.”

The council then entered closed session at 4:38 p.m. Less than 30 minutes later, they emerged, and City Attorney Thomas Smith said, “no reportable action” took place during the closed session.

Special Council Meeting

The council then moved on to the special meeting agenda.

Item E was pulled from the Consent Calendar and the rest of it was passed, including the Council Warrants. Those include expenditures from various city departments, including the $20,550 paid from the police department’s budget to Oakland-based Makin Moves Motorcycle Club to cover the costs for the Community Day proposed by District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker and approved by Interim Police Chief Steve Ford, according to city Finance Director Dawn Merchant. That same organization was hired to organize the city’s Juneteenth Celebration after the city withdrew the permit for the event organized for the past few years from Claryssa Wilson. In addition, it’s leader, Ronald Muhammad, an Antioch resident, contributed $500 to Thorpe’s anti-recall committee.

During the Friday afternoon meeting, the council heard a presentation by Ford about the proposed hiring incentives for police. They include $50,000 per lateral officer hired from other departments and $40-60,000 per entry level officer. The up to $60,000 may be in the form of a loan that may be applied towards the purchase of a home in the city and partially forgiven over time based on the years of service as a police officer within the city.

He spoke about current staffing saying, “technically, we have 101 sworn on staff with 115 budgeted. But we have 21 injured and three in training. We have only 38 on patrol. That give us six or seven officers per shift. We have 13 vacancies. We also have an investigation…that could further deplete our staffing.”

He spoke of the need for both public safety and officer safety.

“Brentwood and Oakley don’t have a hiring incentive for their officers,” Ford pointed out.

Only two residents spoke, and another’s letter was read during public comments.

“Too much is being offered,” said Ralph Hernandez opposing the incentive proposal. He then read comments by his wife, Norma which were submitted in time for Tuesday’s meeting, with her concerns about the incentive package, including what’s being offered to existing officers.

“I like that there’s going to be a bonus…you have to do something to get people in,” said a resident named Lynette. “My concern is you may incentivize…officers to leave. You have to be careful with the number” out of concern for how it will affect current officers in the department.”

“You don’t have any women of color but you can actually recruit them to this department,” she continued.

Regarding the home loan incentive she said, “good luck with collecting it. The reason Brentwood discontinued their home incentive program because they couldn’t get anyone to work on it.”

Council Reaches Consensus on $25,000 Incentive But Takes No Action

“This is strictly about bringing folks, here,” Mayor Lamar Thorpe stated.

“I think we need to incentivize those officers who stayed during the pandemic,” District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock stated, referring to retention. She then reiterated the fact that Brentwood discontinued their home loan incentive program, “because officers weren’t paying it back.”

“They’re going to walk away so, I’m not in favor of that,” Ogorchock added.

“The intention is to provide down payment assistance,” Thorpe responded.

Ogorchock then read from the staff report for the council item about the home incentive.

“I don’t know why that’s in there,” Thorpe stated.

“It does say ‘may’,” City Attorney Smith pointed out.

“There are other programs out there that are more palatable,” District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker said. “I was concerned how it will be paid back.”

“I don’t agree with the $40,000,” she added.

“This is a temporary proposal,” Thorpe stated, in his continued efforts to sell his and Ford’s proposal to his council colleagues.

“I, too, think the $40K is a little steep. I would be OK with $25,” District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson stated.

“I will continue to emphasize that the initial amount has to be significant,” Thorpe responded.

“It’s not an expense. It’s an investment,” Ford then stated. “It’s going to be very impactful no matter how this plays out. It’s a very dismal situation playing out. The investigation…is going to have a ripple effect in the organization.

“What keeps good policing is leadership,” he stated. “So, good leadership is what I’m trying to instill in this organization.”

“I understand the fiscal concerns but investing in a safe environment…” Ford continued. “As this conversation continues. If we’re really serious about public safety…we have to look at whatever money is spent is an investment not an expense.”

Barbanica asked about staffing.

“We are at 101,” Ford responded.

“Remember eight are locked up,” Thorpe stated.

“The $10,000 incentive is not going to attract young people into this profession,” Ford said.

“It’s right now, money. If we hire 10 new people, we’ll be writing a check for $600,000,” Barbanica said. “I would prefer…it has to be a higher number. Just the salary savings we have, right now. The escrow thing very much scares me. I do believe we need to do something because $10,000 isn’t working. So, I’d support something in the $25,000 range. No way we can hire that many in a year. It has to be a two-to-three-year program.”

“The police department is not the only department…” Torres-Walker pointed out. “This council approved hiring seven more code enforcement officers. We have five of 14 approved.”

“I appreciate Councilman Barbanica saying he wants us to hire the right police officers,” she continued. “We have a lot of the wrong people under investigation, paying out lawsuits, ranging from murder, civil rights violations…in this police department and under the leadership of past police chiefs. And we wouldn’t be here if there was transparency” in the department.

“If you have 115,000 people in your city and six officers…there aren’t enough officers to keep the city of Antioch safe, right now or keep the officers safe,” Ford stated.

“We have a very robust recruitment effort underway,” he shared. “It’s a very complicated process. There’s no quick fix. I understand the underlying concerns. I agree with everything I’m hearing. But I would be remiss if I didn’t say we’re not in a good position in the City of Antioch.”

“Staffing is a larger issue across the country,” Thorpe then said, referring also to teachers.

“The amount will not be the same as this,” he continued. “I heard $25,000.’

“Over what time?” Torres-Walker asked.

“Five years,” Thorpe responded.

“I’m fine with the $15 up front,” Barbanica said.

“We need to have something up front,” Ford said. “If it’s over five years, then so be it.”

“With a $25 and a $30 I’d be open…to both of those,” Torres-Walker stated.

“The one thing I’d like to see rather than writing a check for $50,000…” Barbanica then said wanting it to be over time.

“What I hear in agreement, today is a five-year incentive program,” Thorpe said in response to a question from Ogorchock about differences between the laterals versus new hires. “The $50,000 would be only for academy graduates.”

After polling the other council members, there was no consensus for a housing bonus, “so, we won’t come back with that,” Thorpe stated.

Barbanica, Ogorchock all four other council candidates want to wait until after the election and let the new council decide

Antioch Police Officers Association issues supportive statement of interim police chief during contract negotiations

By Allen D. Payton

It was announced by Mayor Lamar Thorpe on Monday that a special Antioch City Council meeting will be held this Friday, to hire Con Johnson as the permanent city manager and Dr. Steve Ford as permanent chief of police, less than 90 days before the November election. Today, Thursday, the agenda was released showing a closed session meeting will be held tomorrow, Friday, Aug. 26 at 4:30 p.m. when most Antioch residents are still at work. It does not include the hiring of a permanent police chief only for a “PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT pursuant to Government Code section 54957: Title: City Manager”. The meeting agenda does not include the name of the candidate nor a copy of the contract for the public to review and provide input prior to the council’s closed session. (See related articles here, here and here)

All of it is not sitting well with two council members and all four other challengers in this year’s city council races.

Asked on April 27 if the council would start the hiring process for a permanent police chief, this year or wait until the end of the year, Mayor Lamar Thorpe stated, “no, we’ve started that process.” But that is not true according to at least two other council members.

Both Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock said they knew nothing about the mayor’s announcement before it was made, and that the council has yet to vote on a process for hiring a permanent city manager or police chief. The council in the past hasn’t hired the police chief, who is a department head and is usually hired by the city manager. But the current council majority has made it clear they want to be the ones to decide. Attempts to reach Districts 1 and 4 Councilwomen Tamisha Torres-Walker and Monica Wilson asking if they were aware of the announcement were unsuccessful.

Asked when the council had voted on the appointment process for a permanent city manager or chief of police Ogorchock responded, “no, we have not voted on this, it has not come before council.”

Asked about the appointment on Friday’s agenda she responded, “number one the mayor doesn’t have the power to appoint. I don’t know what’s going to be discussed in closed session. There needs to be a process. We do need to discuss our options in hiring a new city manager. The council gets the final say not the mayor.”

Asked if the decision should wait until after the election for the new council to choose a new city manager, Ogorchock said, “It’s in a very long process. If we started the process, now, number one you have to hire the consultant if we’re not going to hire from within and that is a process in itself. It would actually, possibly be the new council that would make the decision.”

“I believe the new council should be choosing the new city manager because it’s their employee,” she added.

In response to a comment that any decisions shouldn’t be made until after the election and a new council is seated, Barbanica replied, “100% agree it should be after the election.”

In response to Thorpe’s announcement, the Antioch Police Officers Association, whose members’ contract was on Tuesday night’s council meeting agenda for approval, issued the following statement on Monday:

“As is customary when a change of leadership occurs within the Antioch Police Officer’s Association, the new president (Sergeant Rick Hoffman) and Vice President (Corporal Loren Bledsoe) met with the mayor and other city leaders to discuss the state of the police department and city going forward. The APOA leaders spoke with the mayor about various topics including transparency, reform, ongoing training and interim Chief Ford. The APOA has had the pleasure of working with interim Chief Ford and appreciate his vision and his leadership. The APOA has enjoyed great working relationships with our Chiefs through the years, most recently with Chief Tammany Brooks, Interim Chief Morefield and now Interim Chief Ford.

Should there be a process to fill our department’s permanent Chief position, the APOA will support and respect the process and will be prepared to have a good working relationship with the Chief who is ultimately selected. Should interim Chief Ford be selected to fill the permanent Chief position, we will fully support him and will be eager to continue the work we have started together.

APOA President Rick Hoffman”

Council Candidates Oppose Making Hiring Decision, Now

Former Antioch Councilwoman and District 1 candidate, Joy Motts said she was shocked that the mayor is pushing this without a public process.

“Even if you have your mind made up there should at least be a public process for transparency,” she said. “I think they should wait until after the election, absolutely. This is the most critical hire in the city. To not allow other applicants or the existing assistant city manager to apply is just wrong. Antioch deserves the best and the brightest. Mr. Johnson may be that person, but the residents of Antioch will never know because the council didn’t do their due diligence.”

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen this happen like this,” Motts continued. “Have you ever seen another city that didn’t bring in a list of competent candidates for council to review? And what would have been wrong with doing that? I don’t get it.”

“If you look up the requirements of a city manager, you’re really at the highest, management, public works, engineering. To not even allow Assistant City Manager Rosanna Bayon Moore to apply is not right,” the once and now candidate for District 1 council member stated. “Lamar said at Ron’s (Bernal) retirement party, this is why we approved the hiring of an assistant city manager, so we would have someone to take Ron’s place.”

I was on council when we hired Rosanna. Ron needed help and we needed a succession plan. Lamar said that’s why we hired her and then he doesn’t even give her the chance.”

“She’s been there for three years and proven herself. Rosanna should have been allowed to apply and others, too.”

Former Antioch School Board president, Diane Gibson-Gray who is also running in District 1 said, “I think it’s something that should wait until after the council is seated following the election. What’s the rush? I know Con has a one-year contract. So, I don’t understand the urgency. It’s politics.”

“I believe a city manager hiring process should include allowing applicants from inside the city and outside the city so that the best candidate is hired,” she added.

District 4 Council candidates Shawn Pickett and Sandra White are also opposed to the hiring of both city officials, now.

“It lacks transparency with the process,” Pickett said. “Was that process known to the public and other council members? Did you write down any notes about their performance? Still, nobody knows. It lacks a clear and transparent process. No one knows the process.”

“You can’t use a criminal investigation led by the DA’s office and the FBI as your basis for hiring a city manager and police chief. Is it all behind closed doors? You can’t expect transparency if you’re not going to be transparent as the mayor. You can’t hold the police department accountable if you’re not holding yourself accountable,” the retired Richmond police lieutenant said.

Asked what his thoughts are about it happening now before the election, Pickett responded, “what’s the rush? It’s only three or four months before the election takes place. A new council might not agree with his selection.”

“It does a serious disservice to Con Johnson and Steve Ford,” the council candidate continued. “I would want a process that is clearly outlined. I would like to have participated in that openly.”

“Did you get input from the other council members? The fact that he (Thorpe) didn’t shows a lack of transparency,” Pickett continued. “Where is your effort to make the police department better. They failed to lead. Defunding and reform and reimagine are all trick words. How about expanding? How about a regulatory unit? You’re bringing all these cannabis businesses to town. That’s making Antioch PD better. All these reform bombs aren’t doing a thing. You can pay these cops a million dollars but if they’re not feeling appreciated, then they’re not going to want to come to work. That’s with any job.”

“It seems like everything they do is short sighted, not based on fact,” he added.

Asked if the council should wait until after the next election to hire a permanent city manager and police chief Pickett responded, “what are we trying to accomplish at the city manager position and the police chief’s position? The blank area is that expectation. If we want to find the best person for the city and have public input, then you do a nationwide search.”

“If you have council members who haven’t been informed or the public, then it’s not fair or a transparent process,” he continued. “Did you ask the community their expectations and have a survey online?”

“Should they wait? I would say yes. Because they should have a transparent process. Always err on the side of transparency. I don’t see that happening in any decision being made,” Pickett added.

When reached for comment about Thursday’s meeting, White said, “The hiring of a city manager should be open to the public. Legally they have a right to do it. Also, legally the new council, if the city manager, is not good, they can fire him.”

“Speaking from my professional experience I want to know what’s in the contract, what have they built in his offer, is there a parachute compensation? If he is prematurely let go, based on poor performance then is he out the severance? We need to know that,” she stated. “I need to know if we’re stuck with him or not. That makes a big difference. There’s generally a probationary period. Is that in the contract?”

“My position on this is the decision should be made after the election closes and it should be open to the public,” White added.

Asked for her thoughts on holding the meeting at 4:30 p.m. White responded, “The meeting should be held so that every working citizen can have the opportunity to attend the meeting if they choose to do so.”

“They need to have better transparency,” she added.

Questions for Thorpe, Wilson, Torres-Walker and City Attorney

Questions were sent shortly after 5:00 p.m. Thursday to Thorpe, Wilson, Torres-Walker and City Attorney Thomas Smith.

Thorpe was asked, “are you planning on taking a vote in closed session tomorrow to hire a permanent city manager? Or are you expecting the council to discuss beginning the hiring process? If it’s the former, shouldn’t the agenda include a copy of the contract for the public to review and give input on before the council takes a vote? Also, shouldn’t it be the next council after the election that chooses who they are going to work with for the next two to four years? Why are you again holding an afternoon meeting on such an important matter when most residents who commute out of the city to work aren’t able to attend and give the council their input before you hold the closed session?”

About Motts’ comments on the current assistant city manager, Thorpe was also asked, “Is that true? If so, will you consider Rosanna Bayon Moore for the position of city manager?”

Smith was asked, “does the candidate’s name and contract have to be provided to and the vote taken in public?”

Wilson and Walker were asked, “shouldn’t the decision to hire a permanent city manager wait until after the election?”

No responses were received by 7:45 p.m. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

A special council meeting will follow at 5:00 p.m. in which the items not dealt with during this past Tuesday’s regular council meeting will be addressed. See complete agenda for both the closed session and special meetings, here: 082622.pdf (antiochca.gov)

District 4 councilwoman won’t say why; McCauley not happy

Approves on split vote changes to RV, boat parking ordinance allowing only 200 permits per year; allows parking on driveways in front of homes

Settle police use of force lawsuit for $495,000

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting Tuesday night, August 23, the Antioch City Council voted 3-2 for another cannabis distribution business but split 2-2 with District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson recusing herself on the vote defeating the first cannabis retail business proposed for downtown Rivertown. In addition, the council voted 4-1 to allow RV and boat owners in the city to park them in front of their homes on their driveways. Finally, the council voted in closed session to settle a police use of force lawsuit.

RV Ordinance

The city will issue up to 200 permits per year to RV owners. However, according to the city staff report, the “946 permits from the current RV Registration System will be carried over into the new system and will not count towards the 200 annual cap.” The ordinance requires a three-foot setback from the sidewalk and property lines.

The ordinance provides the following definitions:

“RECREATIONAL VEHICLE. A personal vehicle, including but not limited to, a camping trailer, motorhome, tent trailer, fifth-wheel trailer, unmounted camper shell, boat, personal watercraft, utility trailer, or other mobile recreational equipment or watercraft, or any empty trailer intended for or capable of carrying any of the above.

MOTOR VEHICLE. Any automobile, truck, trailer, Recreational Vehicle, or other vehicle or equipment that is required to be registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles.”

After previous meetings and dozens of public comments on the matter, then hearing a few more members of the public speak on both sides of the issue Tuesday night, District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock made the motion, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker seconded the motion, and it passed on a 4-1 vote with only Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica voting no.  RV Parking Ordinance ACC082322

Another Cannabis Distribution Business Approved on 3-2 Vote

The council also voted to approve another cannabis business at the former Goodwill location at the western corner of W. 10th Street, inside the same building as an existing cannabis retail business, called One Plant, which already has a use permit. (See related article)

Former Antioch Councilman and police officer Ralph Hernandez was the only person to speak on the item, opposing it stating, “marijuana is still illegally federally” and attracts crime.

“I’m kind of disappointed that the owner isn’t even here,” Ogorchock said. “I would only request that they improve the landscaping.”

“I believe the owner was present, but the first item ran long,” said Torres-Walker.

“We approved their application the first time,” Thorpe said.

Wilson moved approval of the cannabis distribution center at the location, and it passed 3-2 with Barbanica and Ogorchock voting no.

Wilson Recuses on Rivertown Retail Cannabis Business, Denied 2-2

The second cannabis business on the agenda, named FUEL to be the first one planned for Rivertown, the city’s historic downtown, was then introduced for a public hearing.

“AKA the McCauley Cartel,” Thorpe said with a chuckle.

“Something that’s been brought to my attention this afternoon,” Wilson said mentioning the city attorney, then recused herself from the dais. Asked why after the meeting she did not respond.

The council approved the downtown cannabis retail zone last year, Community Development Director Forrest Ebbs said in presenting the staff report. But the council waived the normal setback restrictions of 600 feet from a church or school.

Vinyak Shasry, the partner of Sean McCauley, who owns a variety of buildings and has brought several restaurants to the Rivertown Dining District and was also at the meeting, provided a presentation to the council “to convert what was a dance studio”.

“This will benefit the downtown area by bringing foot traffic,” he said. “It’s clean, it’s professional, it’s safe.”

The first speaker to oppose it at 11:50 p.m. was Hernandez saying, “Is marijuana healthy? No. Is it illegal? Yes. Marijuana has already been identified as a schedule one drug. Families suffer. Law enforcement is now checking drivers for marijuana.”

“The location that they showed pictures of, the dance studio, across from a federal credit union,” he stated. “Does it belong there? No. Can you guarantee our community that the people who will be under the influence of these products will be safe? I say, ‘no’.”

“They’re not going to consume them in the facility but as soon as they step out onto the sidewalk, they’re going to be walking or driving,” Hernandez stated. “It’s not going to be just restricted to this facility. They’re selling you a dream. They’re going to be using it in the streets in their cars. They’re going to make a lot of money.”

“Can’t we make money without marijuana?” he asked. “Don’t fall for this, people. Come on. If you’re really concerned about the safety of Antioch, you’ll vote no.”

Another member of the public to speak was homeless advocate Andrew Becker who said, “I want to come up and thank Ralph. It really takes a courageous person to come up and share truth. Here in California, we’ve made incredible strides in the marijuana industry and it’s incredibly disappointing to hear that the federal government hasn’t kept up with this.” He compared smoking marijuana to smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. “To consume recreational cannabis in California you have to be 21.”

Two more speakers supported the business and one more opposed it, citing the potential, negative impacts on homeless residents in the city.

During council discussion Barbanica spoke first saying, “When this overlay came before council a year ago…what I asked for simply was some boundaries, next to schools, churches, rehab centers. But it was shot down. I would be a hypocrite now to vote for something that I didn’t vote for with the overlay.”

“I do want to remind you that in that substitute motion you would have zero facilities downtown,” Thorpe stated.

“The only thing I’m looking at if this is to pass is the security on site,” Ogorchock said asking for two security officers.

“Is that an amendment the operator needs to make?” Torres-Walker asked.

“Yes,” Ogorchock responded.

“That’s part of the requirement. I believe that’s in there,” Shasry said.

“I see Captain Morefield shaking his head it’s in there, so there’s two,” Thorpe stated.

District 1 Councilwoman Torres-Walker then moved approval of the use permit for the cannabis retail business. Thorpe seconded. But it failed on a 2-2 tie.

“So, if there are two yes, two no, the motion doesn’t pass,” City Clerk Ellie Householder asked City Attorney Thomas Smith, which he confirmed.

McCauley Not Happy

Reached for comment Wednesday morning, asked if he had hosted a fundraiser for Wilson and if that’s why she recused herself, McCauley responded, “probably. But she shouldn’t have. This would have brought 1,000 new people a day and foot traffic to the downtown district. That’s the equivalent of 15 operators. The businesses need this foot traffic.”

“Right now, we have over a million dollars a month in restaurant revenue for the two large restaurants (Smith’s Landing and Monica’s Riverview),” he shared. “We need to get people into the downtown area, now.”

“They wanted it. I didn’t put the overlay down there, they did,” McCauley continued. “After I spent $10,000 trying to get it in there and getting it lined up. Then they voted it down. I don’t understand it.”

“If they’re going to have cannabis in the downtown area, I needed to control it to have the best operator to not ruin what I’ve done down there, not just some smoke shop,” he explained. “We wanted it to look like an Apple store. These are quality people, soccer moms, professionals. It’s not the black market.”

“If they want it on the outskirts everywhere else and have thousands in foot track everywhere else, fine. But they wanted it. There’s one license that they’re going to allow downtown,” McCauley stated. “That’s what our strategy was. Now, we don’t know what’s going to happen down there. We wanted to have the best operator in the downtown district. We don’t know what’s going to happen with the next person who’s going to come down there.”

“We opened Luxe Salon Studios down there. We have 40 new entrepreneurs in the downtown district. We’re trying to build momentum,” he added.

“I respect the decision of the council and would feel other operators in the downtown overlay would be treated accordingly,” McCauley stated.

Pressed further if he hosted a fundraiser for Wilson and about recusing herself, he said, “I let her use my property for a fundraiser. I didn’t contribute any money to her campaign. But I don’t really think that was the reason.”

Settle Police Use of Force Lawsuit

In other council action, reporting out from closed session before the regular meeting, City Attorney Smith said the city council agreed to a settlement of $495,000 in a case of police use of force. The motion was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Barbanica and seconded by Councilwoman Ogorchock and it was approved 5-0.

Conflicts of Interest Law, Questions for Wilson, City Attorney

According to the California Fair Political Practices Commission Conflicts of Interest, “a public official has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is foreseeable that the decision will have a financial impact on his or her personal finances or other financial interests. In such cases, there is a risk of biased decision-making that could sacrifice the public’s interest in favor of the official’s private financial interests. To avoid actual bias or the appearance of possible improprieties, the public official is prohibited from participating in the decision.”

Disqualifying Financial Interests

There are five types of interests that may result in disqualification:

• Business Entity. A business entity in which the official has an investment of $2,000 or more in which he or she is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or manager.

• Real Property. Real property in which the official has an interest of $2,000 or more including leaseholds.  (However, month-to-month leases are not considered real property interests.)

• Income. An individual or an entity from whom the official has received income or promised income aggregating to $500 or more in the previous 12 months, including the official’s community property interest in the income of his or her spouse or registered domestic partner.

• Gifts. An individual or an entity from whom the official has received gifts aggregating to $500 or more in the previous 12 months.

• Personal Finances. The official’s personal finances including his or her expenses, income, assets, or liabilities, as well as those of his or her immediate family.

Disqualifying Financial Impact or Effect

If a decision may have a financial impact or effect on any of the foregoing interests, an official is disqualified from governmental decision if the following two conditions are met:

• The financial impact or effect is foreseeable, and

• The financial impact or effect is significant enough to be considered material.

Generally, a financial impact or effect is presumed to be both foreseeable and material if the financial interest is ‘explicitly’ or directly involved in the decision. A financial interest is explicitly involved in the decision whenever the interest is a named party in, or the subject of, a governmental decision before the official or the official’s agency.

If the interest is “not explicitly involved” in the decision, a financial impact or effect is reasonably foreseeable if the effect can be recognized as a realistic possibility and more than hypothetical or theoretical. A financial effect need not be likely to occur to be considered reasonably foreseeable.

However, for interests “not explicitly involved” in the decision, different standards apply to determine whether a foreseeable effect on an interest will be material depending on the nature of the interest. The FPPC has adopted rules for deciding what kinds of financial effects are important enough to trigger a conflict of interest. These rules are called “materiality standards,” that is, they are the standards that should be used for judging what kind of financial impacts resulting from governmental decisions are considered material or important.

There are too many materiality standards to adequately review all of them here. To determine the applicable materiality standard, or to obtain more detailed information on conflicts, an official may seek assistance from agency counsel or the FPPC anytime the official has reason to believe a decision may have a financial impact or effect on his or her personal finances or other financial interests.

Exceptions

Not all conflicts of interest prevent a public official from lawfully taking part in the government decision. There are two limited exceptions to the conflict of interest rules:

• The Public Generally Exception. A public official is not disqualified from a decision if the effect on the official’s interests is indistinguishable from the effect on the public.
• Legally Required to Participate. In certain rare circumstances, a public official may be randomly selected to take part in a decision if a quorum cannot be reached because too many officials are disqualified under the Act.

Exceptions must be considered with care. A public official should contact agency counsel or the FPPC to determine if an exception applies.

Recusal Requirements

An official with a disqualifying conflict of interest may not make, participate in making, or use his or her position to influence a governmental decision. When appearing before his or her own agency or an agency subject to the authority or budgetary control of his or her agency, an official is making, participating in making, or using his or her position to influence a decision any time the official takes any action to influence the decision including directing a decision, voting, providing information or a recommendation, or contacting or appearing before any other agency official. When appearing before any other agency, the official must not act or purport to act in his or her official capacity or on behalf of his or her agency.

Certain officials (including city council members, planning commissioners, and members of the boards of supervisors) have a mandated manner in which they must disqualify from decisions made at a public meeting (including closed session decisions) and must publicly identify a conflict of interest and leave the room before the item is discussed.

While there are limited exceptions that allow a public official to participate as a member of the public and speak to the press, the exceptions are interpreted narrowly and may require advice from your agency’s counsel or the FPPC.”

The following questions were emailed Wednesday morning to both Wilson and City Attorney Smith asking “Monica, which disqualifying financial interest did you have to cause you to recuse yourself from voting on the​ Fuel cannabis retail business proposed for G Street, last night?

Do you own a financial interest in the business? Do you own a financial interest in the​ building where it was to be located? Does someone in your immediate family work for Mr. McCauley’s proposed cannabis business or any of his businesses? Was it because Sean McCauley allowed you to hold a campaign event at his property on Deer Valley Road? If so, how is that a conflict of interest since there was no personal financial gain, only a benefit to your campaign?

Thomas, did you advise the councilwoman to recuse herself? If so, on what basis?”

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

 

Following tenant organizing across city by out-of-town organizations over rent hikes, evictions and alleged harassment

65 people including residents who claim to have received threats speak in support to prevent further homelessness from surging in the area

Only affects those in multi-family housing

By Allen D. Payton

In response to the inflation due to the overspending by Congress during the past two years and the shutdown of the economy leaving many residents unable to pay their rent, and following several actions this year by tenants living in Antioch apartments, the City Council voted 3-2 for a Rent Stabilization Ordinance on Tuesday, August 23. Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica, who had argued for an alternative that wouldn’t hurt “mom and pop” landlords, and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock who offered different percentages, opposed the ordinance. Rent Stabilization Ordinance ACC082322

During the public hearing that was moved to the beginning of the meeting for the standing room only audience, a total of 65 people including renting families from across the city, spoke at the meeting to strongly urge city council members to:

• cap rent increases at 60% of CPI or 3%, whichever is less
• ensure affordable housing and specifically, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) buildings are covered
• implement the measure retroactively to January 2022
• include a rent board and tenant appeal process, and to
• immediately freeze rent to avoid retaliation by landlords

This council meeting follows the January 25, 2022, meeting where the Antioch City Council voted to direct City staff to begin drafting Rent Stabilization, Tenant Anti-Harassment and Just-Cause for Eviction Ordinances – all three which they promised would be brought to a vote in a future meeting.

According to tenantlawcalifornia.com, “on October 8, 2019 a new statewide rent control law, AB1482 also known as the ‘Tenant Protection Act of 2019’ was passed that, among other things, limits the ability of landlords to raise rents and includes limitations on the ability of landlords to terminate leases commonly known as “just cause for evictions”.

The law requires a landlord have a “just cause” in order to terminate a tenancy and limits annual rent increases to no more than 5% plus the local Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 10%, whichever is lower.

However, a loophole in the law allows a higher rent increase if the tenant is given a longer notice period than 60 days.

Organizers claim renters in apartments owned by Santa Monica-based Levy Affiliated LLC received rent increases between $200 and $700 per month threatening to displace them. An email was sent to Levy Affiliated Tuesday night, asking if that is true and isn’t it in violation of state law AB1482 which caps annual rent increases to 5% plus CPI or 10% whichever is less. They were also asked, if not, how much have rents increased in the units your company rents in Antioch.” No response was received as of Wednesday morning at 11:00 a.m. Please check back later for any responses from the company.

Only a few people, including a former rental property in Antioch, spoke against the matter.

“I am against the ordinance,” he said wanting flexibility to allow for some increases in rent to cover the costs of repairs.

The primary complaints were against the Delta Pines, Casa Blanca and Delta View apartment complexes. In addition, a rally and “Walk of Shame” march was held at the Twin Creeks Apartments on James Donlon Blvd. earlier this year. (See related article)

One speaker said there were 800 evictions in East County and only 33 in Central County this year, during the same time period.

Another lady said, “it’s a Black and Brown thing”, claiming people are making comments on Craigslist that the increase in rents is part of a plan to get Black and Hispanic families to move out of Antioch.

“This is the system that Oakland uses and soon, Richmond will use,” said an attorney for ACCE. It’s also what San Francisco and Berkeley use, he shared.

“Antioch is behind the times in tenant protections,” the attorney continued. “We know what’s legal and what’s not legal.”

Some of the speakers also asked for Tenant Anti-Harassment and Just-Cause for Eviction Ordinances but they were not on the agenda for discussion or a vote.

Joe Stokely also spoke against the proposed ordinance saying, “I believe their plight. But I think it’s limited to a few landlords. The majority of landlords are good people. I know there are laws in place. I don’t believe it’s in the best interest of people to pass new laws. There have been laws in place for decades. I don’t hear anything about the existing laws. My concern is that you’re going to cause a bigger problem for Antioch…you’re going to cause an unfair environment for people not to be in business.”

“What I hear over and over again is a few bad actors,” he continued. “The effort should be put into remedying that. Having an extra layer of bureaucracy and laws is not the answer.”

Another speaker in favor of the ordinance warned of making it too strict, as it could affect the non-profit housing providers in Antioch. “It could be a bad, unintended consequence.” She spoke of working with the council and city attorney, “to get it right the first time.”

“If you put rent control, here the renter’s will be happy,” said another speaker against the ordinance. “A lot more housing is the only way to decrease the price for a lot of people to live. Antioch has a lot of housing. With a 60% CPI who in their right mind will build in Antioch? Rent control is not an answer. We should just let the free market work and let people build more homes in Antioch.”

Joe Summers of the Contra Costa Central Labor Council responded to the comment that “the city simply needs to build more housing. I agree all cities should build more affordable housing. But Antioch can’t just build its way out of the problem. The city must act to protect the residents…to prevent a mass exodus from Antioch…pushing more people out of the area or out on the street.”

California Apartment Association representative said, “Antioch already has rent control…with AB1482. Governor Newsom said, ‘California already has the strongest renter protections…’”

“The concept of cost sharing is not something supported by property owners,” she continued and wanted the tenants to pay for any additional costs the city would pass through to the properties.

“Please look into the exemption…for the fair rate of return,” she stated. “Remember, most rental property owners are small, family owners.” She said the ordinance could force property owners

“No one should live in uninhabitable homes. CAA supports strong code enforcement. The city could engage in a robust education campaign”…and “a due process without assuming that one side is guilty…without harming one specific group. Don’t make providing housing more difficult…because according to the proponents, nothing is ever enough.”

A landlord with properties in Antioch named Mack, spoke last saying, “it’s heartbreaking to hear from some tenants. But it’s a targeted issue.”

“I would like to emphasize the supply and demand which is a basic economic principle. The supply and demand in Antioch is reasonably balanced. I’m afraid rent control in Antioch may break that balance…many mom and pop landlords…will be scared and walk away from their rental business. Several years later you will see a drop in rental properties.”

There are 45,000 units in San Francisco empty. You know why? Because such strong rental ordinance for years. Many of the mom and pop owners walked away from the rental business. It doesn’t mean they sold the house. They just left the property empty. I want the council members to pay attention to this very real issue.”

He then mentioned the high population of homeless in San Francisco.

“San Francisco has the highest rent in the nation,” Mack then said. “Do you know why? Because the rent control ordinance is so strict.”

“The fundamental solution is to build more housing, to provide more to have a balanced society to protect the tenants, the more vulnerable…” He was cut off because he had reached his five-minute time limit to speak.

Council Discussion & Split Vote

Following public comments, the council members took up the matter after a break, Mayor Lamar Thorpe shockingly said jokingly that he wanted to entertain a motion to postpone the item until next year. “I just want to get the blood pumping,” he stated while laughing.

District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker spoke first.

“I noticed all the opposition was online, today. They couldn’t be inconvenienced to show up, tonight,” she said. However, the first speaker against the ordinance spoke at the podium inside the council chambers.

About the vacant rentals in San Francisco she said, “I would say those units are empty because the filthy rich don’t want them, and the working poor can’t afford them.”

Torres-Walker wanted to take action now, “rather than do a slow crawl on the floor.”

“I’m just thankful that you’re all here, tonight,” District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock said speaking next briefly. “I’m going to go ahead because it’s getting late and let others speak on this.”

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson asked a question of a speaker named Leah about what housing services means.

“Housing services refer to…parking, having a refrigerator, do you have a microwave, access to pools,” she said. “If you don’t include those they can be taken away.”

“Because it was in the letter we received, yesterday and…“I want everything included, the retroactive back to January,” Wilson stated.

Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica said, “raising somebody’s rent 30, 40, 50% is outrageous.” He said he asked for proof and was provided it.

“What we are looking at is corporate landlords,” he stated. “I know what you are going through. I personally reached out to that management, and they are in Texas. I’ve yet to get a call back. It’s ludicrous.”

“I don’t disagree with what anyone is saying here, at all,” Barbanica stated. “My concern is we will hurt the mom and pops. I want to meet in the middle to protect the mom and pops.”

“This ordinance is only for non-exempt properties,” he then asked the city attorney who directed him to the list of exemptions in the ordinance.

“The majority of properties in Antioch they are not going to apply…due to existing law,” Barbanica stated, mentioning “Costa Hawkins”.

According to costa-hawkins.com, “the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act is a California state law” passed in 1995 “that exempts certain kinds of residential rental units from rent control ordinances and allows landlords to reset the rental rate on rent-controlled rental units where they become vacant or where the last rent-controlled tenant no longer permanently resides at the unit (including where they move and leave behind subtenants).”

“They’re exempt if they’re newer than 1994 or if there is only one unit on the property like a single-family home or a duplex in which the owner is living in one of the units,” Barbanica later explained.

It was considered a “moderate approach to overturn extreme vacancy control ordinances [that] unduly and unfairly interfere with the free market”

In response to Thorpe asking for input from the council members, Wilson then offered the 3% cap and 60% of CPI that was requested by many speakers.

“I was looking at the 5 to 10%,” Ogorchock said to groans from the audience. “We have to start some place and I was looking at the Costa Hawkins and we have to look at some of those. I apologize if that doesn’t make some people happy. I don’t want to see these homes go up for sale. The owners can turn them into condos.”

Torres-Walker also supported the 3% cap and 60% of CPI saying, “this is where the ordinance needs to start from.”

“I’ve heard the same argument. Landlords are going to sell their properties,” Torres-Walker said. “It’s a business. I’ve yet to see a landlord take their property off the market because it’s bad for business not to make money.”

Barbanica then said, “I support us doing something. But I don’t support hurting…the moms and pops. I support closing the loopholes for 1482. That will stop the 30%, 40% increases…and we can do that locally.”

“What is a ‘mom and pop’ landlord?” Torres-Walker said.

“They’re not corporate. These are everyday folks who have saved up their money and buy one unit,” Barbanica, a real estate broker and property management company owner responded. “What we’re talking about is corporate landlords.”

“Thank you for that clarification,” the councilwoman responded. “I don’t think anyone who has talked, today are talking about mom and pops and they are trying to follow the rules…and I don’t think they will

“Following 1482 would not allow them to do that, not reducing it lower than that,” Barbanica responded. “Those folks experience inflation, too.”

“I know a lot of mom and pop renters and they remind me that they don’t raise the rents beyond a certain amount,” Thorpe stated. “So, I don’t know how this will affect mom and pops.”

“The mom and pop landlord, as their costs go up…they are increasing their rent accordingly,” Barbanica explained. “If they do they raise it less. But this allows them to stay within state law.”

“I used to work for First 5,” Thorpe stated, speaking of how they’ve been working on an ordinance in Concord for seven years.

“This is the first part of our tenant protection ordinances, rent control, which I’ve proposed,” he said then mentioned the Tenant Anti-Harassment and Just-Cause for Eviction Ordinances.

He then asked for a motion. Barbanica then moved that the limit on rental rate increases with AB1482 and follows the guidelines and closes the loopholes.” It died without a second.

Wilson then moved approval for an ordinance that, “sets a limit on rental rate increases at sixty percent (60%) of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Area published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics with a three percent (3%) cap. Torres-Walker seconded the motion and it passed on a vote of 3-2 with Barbanica and Ogorchock voting no.

Wilson then introduced the ordinance by title only and waived the first reading of the ordinance.

“We can have a discussion now on Attachment A, correct?” Ogorchock asked.

“We’re introducing the ordinance. This is it,” Thorpe explained.

“There’s a section on the landlords being charged a rate. They’re being charged Measure O, a rental tax ordinance and a business license tax. Can we waive that? Do we have to have that?”

“That’s how we fund the program,” City Attorney Thomas Smith said.

“Isn’t that the cost of doing business?” Torres-Walker asked.

“It is the cost of doing business,” Thorpe responded. “For the mom and pop it could be making it a little difficult. I am sympathetic about that and it’s something we can look at, at a later time.”

“I’m saying it’s something we can look at and take out,” Ogorchock said. “They’re paying different fees. I can’t find it, right now. We can come back to it, later.”

“These fees are not going to start, tomorrow,” Thorpe stated. But the taxes on rental properties are already in place and being collected by the city.

The motion also passed on a 3-2 vote with Barbanica and Ogorchock voting no, again.

“OK. Now, it’s official,” said Thorpe to cheers from the audience and shouts of “si, se puede” meaning “yes, we can.”

However, the request to make the ordinance retroactive to January 1, 2022. Antioch will be the only city in the state that implemented rent stabilization to not have a retroactive clause which means landlords can raise rents before the second reading of the ordinance at the next council meeting.

Coalition of Out-of-Town Organizations in Favor of Ordinance Offer More Examples of Antioch Tenant Challenges

According to a press release by a coalition of the East County Regional Group (ECRG), First 5 Contra Costa, The Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Action, and Concord-based Monument Impact:

“ECRG member Dulce Franco, is a single mother who has lived with her two children and elderly mother at Casa Blanca for 11 years. Dulce recently received a 33% rent increase of $381. While the notice was rescinded for insufficient noticing, she is afraid of receiving another similar increase in the future. Dulce recently lost her job and does not have a way to move. She barely stays afloat with the current rent. Dulce and her neighbors are like a family. She is afraid to be separated from her support network. Dulce is also concerned with significant habitability violations including mold, bugs, unrepaired floors and broken bathtub. Without rent control, Dulce and her family are at risk of another extreme rent increase and would have to move out of the area, separating her kids from their friends and their community at Casa Blanca.

ECRG member Rocheall Pierre is an Antioch resident and single mother who pays $1,800 for one bedroom apartment in a corporate owned building. Rocheall works two jobs to pay the rent and often has to make tough choices between paying the rent, putting gas in her car or buying food and clothes for her son. Rocheall has been displaced before and knows what it is to be homeless. She lives in constant fear of being evicted and displaced again as a result of unaffordable rents. Rocheall believes that citywide rent control will help her and other families like her be more secure in Antioch.

ACCE-Contra Costa member Della Currie is one of the many tenants impacted by negligence and high rent increases in Delta Pines. Three months ago, Della, her fiancé and three children were victims of a fire in their apartment building which destroyed many of her belongings in their two-bedroom apartment. As a result, management down-sized Della’s five-person family to a one-bedroom apartment and is now giving her a $300 rent increase to pay for her smaller unit. Della claims her current apartment is in terrible condition with mold, and that the outside of the apartment building has open asbestos which children can access.

The East County Regional Group’s recent housing assessment “Antioch CHANGE: A Community Housing Assessment of Needs, Gaps and  Equity in  Antioch, California”  on rising rents, evictions, and harassment concerns in Antioch, collected the housing needs and concerns of over 1,000 Antioch renters between April 2021 and June 2021. The assessment found that on average respondents paid 63 percent of their monthly income on rent, leaving little for food, medicine, childcare, and other basic necessities. The report shows that the biggest concern of Antioch renters is housing affordability. Low-income residents of color and families with young children are most housing insecure, reporting higher rent burden, fears of displacement, and habitability concerns. Among renters with young children, 83 percent worried about rent increases and 75 percent worried about being able to pay the rent at all. The report also highlights that Antioch residents support local housing policies such as rent control and just cause for evictions with at least 86% of respondents in support of both.

The city of Antioch has been the ground for the largest number of evictions within the Bay Area; a  March 2021 KQED investigative report found Antioch’s eviction rate to be 207.2 per 100,000 renter households, nearly double that of Richmond and approximately 50 times the rate of Oakland. Moreover, 60 percent of Antioch renters, who make up 40% of all Antioch residents, report paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent in 2021. According to a  recent homelessness numbers assessment Contra Costa saw the biggest rise in homelessness in the past four years where homelessness numbers jumped by 35 percent between 2019 and 2022.”

East County Regional Group is a volunteer, parent advocacy group working to make East Contra Costa healthier, safer, and more equitable for young children and families. The ECRG is sponsored by First 5 Contra Costa’s Community Engagement and Advocacy Program.

First 5 Contra Costa helps young children start school healthy, nurtured and ready to learn by investing in services and activities focused on children during their first five years—the most important time in children’s development.

The Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Action is a grassroots, member-led, statewide community organization working with more than 16,000 members across California. ACCE is dedicated to raising the voices of everyday Californians, neighborhood by neighborhood, to fight for the policies and programs we need to improve our communities and create a brighter future.

Monument Impact is a community-based nonprofit dedicated to building skills, resources and power within immigrant, refugee and low-income communities in Concord. Located in the Monument Corridor in Concord, one of the most densely populated communities in the Bay Area, and serving immigrants in Concord and East Contra Costa, community members are engaged in identifying solutions to the challenges and barriers they face to achieving economic prosperity. Its integrated programs focus on building workforce skills; promoting mental and physical health; and ensuring the community’s voice is heard on critical local issues impacting local immigrant families.

Get to know school board Trustee Area 2 candidate Dr. Jag Lathan

By Allen D. Payton

The list of candidates for two seats on the Antioch City Council and Antioch School Board for the November elections finalized on Friday. Three incumbents, Councilwomen Tamisha Torres-Walker in District 1 and Monica Wilson in District 4, and Trustee Mary Rocha in the new Area 5 will run for re-election with each facing challengers. Only one person filed to run in the new school board Trustee Area 2, Dr. Jaguanana “Jag” Lathan. As previously reported, current trustee and Antioch City Clerk Ellie Householder is not running for re-election to the school board and can’t as she moved into Area 1 sometime in the past two years.

Council District 1 

In City Council District 1 incumbent Tamisha Torres-Walker will again face former Antioch councilwoman and school board trustee Joy Motts, as well as former school board trustee Diane Gibson-Gray. Two other candidates didn’t file their nomination papers by the 5:00 p.m. deadline on Friday, August 12, including 2020 mayoral candidate Gabriel Makinano and Gregory Stornetta.

Stornetta responded to an inquiry writing, “I did pull papers, however, have decided not to file. I may pursue a run come next term, just felt that I needed more time to prepare, interact with the community, etc. if there is a possibility that I may win, I want to be sure that I’m fully prepared to take on the role.”

Council District 4 

After voting for a gerrymandered redistricting map that moved current District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock into District 4, incumbent Monica Wilson will face her council colleague, plus one of her 2020 opponents and one other challenger in an effort to be re-elected for a fourth term. Both former Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commission Chair and 2020 council candidate Sandra White and retired Richmond Police Lt. Shawn Pickett filed papers to run.

08/16/22 UPDATE: According to the City Clerk’s office former Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commissioner and real estate broker Michael Gadams filed papers on Friday to run in Council District 4 but did not qualify due to a lack of valid signatures of registered voters on his nomination papers. He needed a minimum of 20 but only had 18. That leaves four candidates in that race.

Area 5 Trustee Rocha Faces One Challenger

According to the County Elections Candidate List issued Friday night, incumbent Antioch School Board Trustee Mary Rocha will be running for re-election facing one challenger, Dominique King. According to her campaign website she is an Antioch Parks and Recreation Commissioner and a member of the Antioch Middle School Site Council.

New Trustee Area 2 Candidate Dr. Jag Lathan

UPDATE & CORRECTION: Because no other candidate filed to run for school board in the new Area 2 following the district’s redistricting process finalized earlier, this year, Dr. Jag Lathan will be the only candidate on the ballot. Because there is no current incumbent for the area, the filing period was extended for five more days until Wednesday, August 17 at 5:00 p.m. An earlier version of this report claimed she had automatically won the race. But other candidates could still file by the extension deadline and official write-in candidates can still file to run, later.

In a post on her campaign Facebook page on Wednesday, August 11 Lathan wrote, “It’s official! After working in public education for over 20 years I have decided to throw my hat in the ring and run for a seat on the Antioch Unified School Board. Kids educations and futures are important to me. I know firsthand when students experience an excellent TK-12 education their lives change for the better. I am super excited and hopeful you will take this ride with me! Donations and volunteers needed and appreciated. Elections November 8, 2022. See the link below for more information about my campaign. https://www.drjagforausd.com/”

Lathan’s campaign was about equity and impact, “ensuring all students have access, opportunities, and supports to thrive in school” and to “empower teachers, administrators, and support staff to make transformational changes.”

According to her LinkedIn profile Lathan worked last year for nine months for the Alameda County Office of Education as Acting Chief of Learning and Accountability (Chief Academic Officer) and for six years prior to that for the San Diego County Office of Education as Executive Director, Equity and Executive Leadership Coach. From Sept. 2018 through May 2019, she was a Leading for Equity Fellow of the National Equity Project.

According to her campaign website, Lathan currently works as the Chief Executive Officer of New Generation Equity and founder of Amara Leaders, a nonprofit organization.

According to the New Generation Equity website the company “partners with organizations and leaders to strengthen their diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging efforts with effective planning and implementation strategies. These actions bring people and organizations closer to the liberated systems they dare to dream.”

According to the Amara Leaders website, the organization is “dedicated to advancing the exceptional leadership of Black women across industries. Together, with our allies, we support Black women to lead at our greatest level of impact so that everyone benefits from the diversity of perspective and our daring leadership.”

More details will be provided about each candidate running in the city council and school board races over the next few weeks.