Special redistricting meeting begins at 5:30 p.m.; will hear presentation from Contra Costa DA Becton; large opposition to ban on sale of certain tobacco products expected; forming another ad hoc committee for new department

By Allen D. Payton

During another special meeting/study session, this time at 5:30 p.m. the Antioch City Council is set to choose a final redistricting map before their regular, 7:00 p.m. meeting tonight, Tuesday, March 8, 2022. Prior to that, at 5:00 p.m., the council will meet in closed session for a Conference with Legal Council on two anticipated lawsuits, with which the city has “significant exposure, In addition, during the regular meeting. But the agenda doesn’t share what those “two cases” of “anticipated litigation” are. The council members and city attorney were asked early Tuesday afternoon to provide information about what are the two cases of anticipated litigation. (See meeting agenda)

At their meeting on Feb. 22 the council switched from two previous map finalists to two new map finalists, new Map 521 and Modified Map A. (See related article)

Then during their regular meeting, the council will hear a report from Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton who is running for re-election in June, and deal with the second reading of the ban on sales of certain tobacco products in Antioch, that they approved on a 3-2 vote at their meeting on Feb. 22, with Mayor Pro Tem and District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker voting no. That issue is expected to garner a large turnout of Antioch retailers, who claim the city did not notify them for last month’s public hearing. According to former Councilman Ralph Hernandez, a petition opposing the ban has gathered over 800 signatures.  Tobacco Products Sales Ban ACC030822 5G

The item reads as follows:

ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 6-8.02 OF THE ANTIOCH MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD THE DEFINITIONS OF CHARACTERIZING FLAVOR, CIGAR, AND LITTLE CIGAR (INCLUDING CIGARILLO) AND AMENDING SECTION 6-8.14 BOTH TO RESTRICT TOBACCO RETAILERS OR BUSINESSES FROM SELLING OR PROVIDING TOBACCO WITH CHARACTERIZING FLAVOR, SELLING OR PROVIDING ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES OR E-CIGARETTES, AND TO REGULATE THE SIZE AND PRICE OF SPECIFIED PACKAGES OF CIGARETTES, LITTLE CIGARS, AND CIGARS

The second reading of the item is on tonight’s meeting’s Consent Calendar as item 5.G. Either a member of the council or public must request the item be removed from the Consent Calendar for a separate discussion and vote.

The council will also vote to approve the minutes for the past three meetings, Jan. 25, Feb. 8 and Feb. 22 which the City Clerk’s Office has failed to keep updated for each following meeting.

Planning Commission Appointments

In addition, the council will consider appointing three residents Mayor Lamar Thorpe has nominated for the Planning Commission, two of whom are his vocal supporters. One is Warren Lutz whose social media comments have been in opposition to most articles published that are negative about Thorpe, and in defense of the mayor. The other is Christian Hills who has posted on social media her opposition to Thorpe’s recall and attended his roast fundraiser, in January, for which he called his opponents “Karen’s” in the promotion for the event. (See related article)

According to the city’s website, Hills is currently a member of the Economic Development Commission, and the third nominee, Robert Martin, is currently Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. But no other background information about the three nominees is part of the agenda packet, including their applications, as has been past practice so the public can know their backgrounds before making comments to the council prior to a vote on their nominations.

Forming Ad Hoc Committee for New Public Safety and Community Resources Department

Finally, among other matters, the council will consider forming another ad hoc committee, this one for developing the purposes of the planned, new Public Safety and Community Resources Department, which will have nothing to do with police services. That department, with a new director at a cost of $275,069 to $327,382 per year, equal to two or three police officers, will oversee seven service areas, two new ones and five existing services that are already handled by other departments.

The department will include, but not be limited to, the existing services of Animal Control, currently part of the Police Department; Youth Services Network Manager, currently part of the Recreation Department; Code Enforcement and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program that are currently part of the Community Development Department, and , the Unhoused Resident Coordinator, which is part of the city manager’s office.

The only new services of the department will be mental health crisis response, and violence intervention and prevention, both of which could be handled by the police department.

Question for Council, City Staff Refuse to Answer Questions Won’t Provide Public Hearing Notice to Tobacco Retailers

On Wednesday, Feb. 23, an email was sent to City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, Mayor Thorpe and Interim City Manager Con Johnson, copying the other four council members and Economic Development Director Kwame Reed, asking if the tobacco retailers in Antioch were noticed about the previous night’s public hearing on the ordinance which is why the owners weren’t there, to speak on the item. “Is that true? If so, why not? Is the city not required to notify those impacted by a council action, especially for public hearings? If that’s not true, how were they notified? Also, how many tobacco retailers are there in Antioch and were each of them notified?

Please provide a copy of the notification and when it was sent to them.

Also, since the ordinance affects adults, in an attempt to keep youth from smoking, is the sale of flavored marijuana/cannabis products also banned in the City of Antioch?”

The only response received was from District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock who wrote, “I am not sure if they were noticed, I can tell you that there was someone that spoke on their behalf, and he was not an owner.  There were owners that did come and speak and others on Zoom.”

Since Ogorchock’s response didn’t completely answer the Herald’s questions nor those of the public, the email was resent on Friday, Feb. 25 and having not received any responses, it was sent once more on Thursday, March 3. No additional responses were received as of Tuesday afternoon, March 8.

Viewing and Public Comments

City Council meetings are televised live on Comcast channel 24, AT&T U-verse channel 99, or live stream at City Council Meeting LIVE – City of Antioch, California (antiochca.gov).

The public has the opportunity to address the City Council on each agenda item. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during “Public Comments”.

Members of the public wishing to provide public comments, may do so in one of the following ways (#2 pertains to the Zoom Webinar Platform):

1. IN PERSON Fill out a Speaker Request Form, available near the entrance doors, and place in the Speaker Card Tray near the City Clerk before the City Council Meeting begins.
2. VIRTUAL To provide oral public comments during the meeting, please click the following link to register in advance to access the meeting via Zoom Webinar: https://www.antiochca.gov/speakers

You will be asked to enter an email address and a name. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. After registering, you will receive an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting.

When the Mayor announces public comments, click the “raise hand” feature in Zoom. For instructions on using the “raise hand” feature in Zoom, visit: https://www.antiochca.gov/raise_hand. When calling into the meeting using the Zoom Webinar telephone number, press *9 on your telephone keypad to raise

your hand. Please ensure your Zoom client is updated so staff can enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak.

Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When you are called to speak, please limit your comments to the time allotted (350 words, up to 3 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor).

The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted.

3. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT If you wish to provide a written public comment, you may do so in one of the following ways by 3:00 p.m. the day of the City Council Meeting:

(1) Fill out an online speaker card, located at https://www.antiochca.gov/speaker_card,

Or (2) Email the City Clerk’s Department at cityclerk@ci.antioch.ca.us.

Please note: Written public comments received by 3:00 p.m. the day of the City Council Meeting will be shared with the City Council before the meeting, entered into the public record, retained on file by the City Clerk s Office, and available to the public upon request. Written public comments will not be read during the City Council Meeting.

Please check back for any updates to this report.

City attorney claims that caused him to “believe that the investigation of the complaint by Tamisha Torres-Walker has been compromised”

Only three emails released, city won’t release others or give Brooks opportunity to respond, defend himself against accusations

Reveal possible internal power struggle between Brooks, Smith

Only two council members, city clerk deny releasing emails; Barbanica wants investigation into leaks, disciplinary action; city attorney won’t say consequences for releasing them

By Allen D. Payton

As of Thursday, Feb. 24, portions of email conversations between former Antioch Police Chief Tammany Brooks and outside investigator Vida Thomas, on which City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith was copied, and from Smith to the city council, regarding the investigation on the claim by District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker against the police officers involved in the incident with her sons in December 2020, were made public. The incident, as previously reported, involved her 13-year-old and adult sons illegally riding an offroad dirt bike and quad on city streets, and the councilwoman’s interaction with the officers who pursued both and stopped her younger son, after her adult son fled the scene, went home and returned with his mother. (See related article)

The email exchange is about the draft report by Ms. Thomas, an attorney with Oppenheimer Investigations Group (OIG), hired to provide an independent investigation of the incident, and claims by Torres-Walker that Officer Calvin Prieto “behaved in an ‘uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner” towards Ms. Walker, in violation of APD Policy 1001.3.4(a).” Emails TLSmith VThomas, TBrooks 09-21

Her use of the term “uncivil” was based on the dictionary definition, not that used by the Antioch Police Department.

Antioch resident Frank Sterling said he obtained the emails in his capacity as a reporter for KPFA radio but wouldn’t say how or from whom. Asked if he had received any additional emails between Brooks, Smith and Thomas, Sterling responded, “that’s it.”

As previously reported last October, Torres-Walker claimed city attorney Smith told all council members Brooks interfered with the investigation. (See related article)

Incomplete Email Record

The emails are incomplete as they don’t show all the communications between Brooks, Smith and Ms. Thomas about the investigation. Only three emails were released, and the city refuses to release the others or give Brooks the opportunity to respond and defend the accusations against him.

Reveal Possible Power Struggle Between Brooks, Smith

According to the email from Ms. Thomas, she claimed “persistent disagreements” between Brooks and Smith over who Oppenheimer’s client was, the police chief or city attorney, that “created some tension between the two”.

However, Brooks responded to her, “It is my understanding that OIG’s client was neither myself nor the city attorney, but instead was ‘the City of Antioch’” and “which should make…who is OIG’s client irrelevant to your findings

Questions for City Attorney, Torres-Walker, Other Council Members, City Staff

The following questions were sent Thursday afternoon, Feb. 24, 2022, to Smith, Torres-Walker, and copying Interim City Manager Con Johnson, Interim Police Chief Tony Morefield, the other four council members and Brooks asking, “what date was your email sent to the council, please, Thomas?

How did providing the correct definition of a term used by both the APD and outside investigator to ensure its proper application cause Brooks to compromise the investigation? Did he tell Ms. Thomas to change her investigation report or merely ask her questions about her draft?

Thomas, did you see the previous email communications between Brooks and Vida Thomas? Or did you just not read them and discovered the final report was different from the draft report which caught you by surprise? Did you challenge Brooks and/or Ms. Thomas after reading their previous communications which, according to her email, you both were copied on? Also, for Thomas and Tamisha, did you two have any communication about the draft report prior to the final report being issued? If so, please provide any and all email, handwritten or typed, or details of verbal communications about the draft and/or final reports.

Is it wrong for the police chief to question anything in any report about the conduct of his officers, whether it’s internally developed or from an outside investigator, especially if it’s merely challenging the use of the definition of a term and how it’s applied by the department?

Now that these emails are public, will you, the interim city manager and interim police chief release the rest of the emails between you, Brooks and Ms. Thomas regarding the outside investigation the councilwoman requested, so that our former police chief is free to defend the accusations against him? Also, so the public can see the other issue upon which Thomas Smith’s belief that the investigation was compromised?”

City Attorney Smith was also asked, “how does the issue mentioned in these emails rise to the level of Brooks compromising the investigation? Or is it the other issue that’s not included in these emails that caused you to have that belief? If so or if not, what is that other issue, please?

Who would it possibly harm if the other related emails are released? If you claim it’s the two officers involved in the incident who are now suing the City and Councilwoman Torres-Walker, let’s ask them if they mind the emails being released.”

The following questions were sent to Attorney Smith both Thursday and Friday, Feb. 24 and 25, 2022 and Interim Chief Tony Morefield on Friday: “Has another outside investigator been hired for the investigation into the police incident with Councilwoman Torres-Walker’s sons riding their dirt bikes on city streets? If so, when did that occur and is that investigation completed? If not, is that currently ongoing? If not, do you still plan to hire another outside investigator in the matter?” (See related article)

The questions were resent at 12:03 PM, Thursday, March 3 and included City Clerk Ellie Householder and Public Information Officer Rolando Bonilla providing information from previous reports by the Herald and with the additional question asking, “Which one of you released/provided/emailed a copy of the attached emails to either Frank Sterling, Lacey Brown/Ferguson or another member of the public? Lacey mentioned it in an Oct. 5, 2021, Facebook post that I reported on in an article published on Oct. 8, 2021 – Antioch councilwoman claims city attorney told all council members former police chief interfered with investigation of December incident with her sons | Antioch Herald

She claims it was from a Public Records Act request. But I find that doubtful.

However, if that’s true, then why wasn’t it shared with the Herald, as I made the PRA last fall for the emails between APD, the City and Oppenheimer and was denied my request. – Antioch city staff won’t respond to questions on councilwoman’s claims of interference by former police chief in investigation of her sons’ and her 2020 incident with police | Antioch Herald

As asked last fall but not responded to, is it a violation of state law? What are the consequences for doing so? Since Councilwoman Torres-Walker publicly mentioned the email between City Attorney Smith and the council, was that a violation of attorney client privilege? Was it a violation of state law?

If so, what are the potential repercussions against her? Does it require former Chief Brooks to sue her and the city for violating his rights? Also, has the second investigation begun and if so, who was hired to do that? If there was one, has it been completed and are the results different than the draft or final reports in the first investigation?”

Barbanica, Ogorchock, Householder Say They Didn’t Release the Emails, Barbanica Wants Person Who Did Disciplined

In response Barbanica called and asked where the Herald obtained the copy of the emails. He later said, “I reached out to the city attorney, and I encouraged the city staff to go into the server and see if they could determine where those came from based on everybody that had them. And if, in fact they could determine where they came from to take appropriate disciplinary action.”

“This is an ongoing litigation and releasing anything from it is improper,” Barbanica continued. “I can’t release anything. I won’t release anything. I have encouraged the city attorney to investigate this and try to determine where they came from and to take appropriate disciplinary action against that person.

Ogorchock also responded by asking for the Herald’s source for the emails. She later denied releasing them saying, “no. I honored the attorney client privilege and the Brown Act, and closed session rules. I wouldn’t violate those. I’m pretty sure who did.”

Asked who she thought that was, Ogorchock wouldn’t say.

Householder responded, “the City Clerk’s Office did not receive (and thus, did not process) a request for those records. This does not mean they were not released by another office or individual, since the public can request records directly from departments.”

“Since there are employees who no longer work for the City of Antioch, I will forward your records request to the Information Services Department to specifically check those closed email accounts to see if they received and/or processed a request for that email,” she added.

No other responses were received as of Friday morning, March 4, 2022. A formal Public Records Act request was made for any and all emails from the council members’ and city clerk’s official email accounts to and from their personal email accounts and/or to members of the public between Sept. 10 and Oct. 5, 2021, which include any city documents or emails from City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith. The city has up to 10 days to respond.

Emails from City Attorney to Council Members, Between Brooks and Investigator

Following are the three emails including one from City Attorney Smith to the city council members which included two emails between Brooks and outside investigator Vida Thomas. No date was provided for the first one:

“Mayor Thorpe, Mayor Pro Tem Wilson and City Council Members,

I believe that the investigation of the complaint by Tamisha Torres-Walker has been compromised. Please see the email discussion below.

Thomas Lloyd Smith

City Attorney

————–

From: Vida Thomas <email address redacted by the Herald>

Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 11:02 AM

To: Brooks, Tammany <tbrooks@antiochca.gov>; Smith, Thomas Lloyd

<TLSmith@antiochca.gov>

Subject: Concern about report finding

Hello, Chief Brooks and Mr. Smith.

It has come to my attention that there are concerns about one of the findings in my final report. Specifically, the finding concerning whether Officer Prieto behaved in an “uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner” towards Ms. Walker, in violation of APD Policy 1001.3.4(a). Because the finding in my draft report was different from the finding in my final report, I want to clarify the sequence of events leading up to my final finding.

My draft report contained a finding sustaining the allegation that Officer Prieto had behaved in an “uncivil” manner. As my draft report indicated, I reached this finding by applying the Oxford dictionary definition of “uncivil.” After reading my draft finding, Chief Brooks informed me of the APD’s interpretation of Policy 1001.3.4, which uses a higher standard than expressed by the dictionary definition of “uncivil.” I determined that Officer Prieto’s behavior did not violate this higher standard as articulated by the Chief.

Although I explained this reasoning in the final report, I did not explain that I believed that Officer Prieto’s behavior met the dictionary definition of “uncivil.” I would be happy to provide an addendum to the final report that includes this clarification.

This investigation was unique because there were persistent disagreements about who OIG’s client was: the Police Chief (with whom OIG executed the investigation contract) or the City Attorney (whose budget funded the investigation). As you both know, this created some tension between the two of you, which made it advisable that I include you both in all of my communications. I did not do that regarding this amended finding,

which I regret. However, at all times, I endeavored to conduct an impartial investigation, balance the apparently conflicting interests of the police department and the city attorney’s office, and reach findings that were driven by the evidence and nothing else. I believe I did that.

If either of you would like me to prepare and attach an addendum as described above to the final report, please let me know in writing, and I will be happy to provide it.

——————

From: Brooks, Tammany <tbrooks@antiochca.gov>

Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 10:04 AM

To: ‘Vida Thomas’ <email address redacted by the Herald>; Smith, Thomas Lloyd

<TLSmith@antiochca.gov>

Subject: RE: Concern about report finding

Good morning Vida,

It is my understanding that OIG’s client was neither myself nor the city attorney, but instead was “the City of Antioch.” Additionally, the service requested was “to conduct an impartial investigation” into the matter, which should make the question as to who is OIG’s client irrelevant to your findings. I trust that your final work product is reflective of your contracted obligations, and as such do not need an addendum.

Thank you,”

Claim gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, defamation and more; “contemptible culture” at APD, “malicious campaign of vengeance” by Torres-Walker

City doesn’t issue response to lawsuit

Councilwoman unsure if she needs outside counsel or if city attorney will represent her, city attorney won’t say

By Allen D. Payton

On Dec. 28, 2021, Antioch Police Officers Andrea Rodriguez and Calvin Prieto filed a lawsuit against the City of Antioch, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker as an individual and unnamed Does 1-10 for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and defamation for how the Antioch Police Department has treated the officers and how the councilwoman treated them both following the Dec. 2020 incident in which they pursued and attempted to pull over two of her sons who were riding dirt bikes illegally on city streets. COMPLAINT-Rodriguez & Prieto v. City of Antioch & Torres-Walker

The officers were able to stop her younger son, who is a minor, but her adult son, Yomani Mapp, who was riding with his younger brother, fled from police, went home and brought the councilwoman back with him to the scene. It was during that exchange and Torres-Walker’s later video rant on her Facebook page that are the basis for the officers’ lawsuit.

As previously reported, he was later charged with evading the police by the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office. Antioch Police submitted a felony charged against Mapp using Vehicle Code (VC) 2800.4, because he drove in the opposite direction while evading police. He could have faced six months to a year in jail or a fine of $1,000 to $10,000, or both. But Contra Costa DA Diana Becton reduced the charge to a misdemeanor using VC 2800.1(a) for just evading police and, if convicted, Mapp could face up to one year in jail. The filing with the court occurred on March 23, the same day Torres-Walker made a $500 contribution to Becton’s re-election committee, according to the DA’s campaign finance report. (See related articles here and here)

Officers Claim “Contemptible Culture” at APD, “Malicious Campaign of Vengeance” by Councilwoman

In their complaint, the officers claim, “Officer Rodriguez and Officer Prieto served their community as dedicated and honorable law enforcement officers for nearly a decade. Over the last two years, Plaintiffs’ (officers’) careers have been railroaded by the collision of two events: a contemptible culture of gender-based discrimination, harassment and retaliation at the Antioch Police Department”.  They also claim, “a malicious campaign of vengeance spearheaded by Defendant Torres-Walker.” The complaint states that her “conduct has been egregious that both Plaintiffs have been placed on stress leave as a result of the emotional distress they have suffered and continue to suffer, jeopardizing their livelihoods, law enforcement careers, and depriving the City of Antioch of two committed officers.”

The officers are requesting a jury trial for their case and for “general, special and compensatory damages; punitive and exemplary damages; civil penalties; pre-judgment interest; and attorneys’ fees and costs.

A case management conference is scheduled for May 17, 2022, at 8:30 AM in Department 21.

City Council Discussed Case in January

The case was discussed by the city council during a closed session meeting on Jan. 25, 2022. – Closed Session Agenda item 4. reads, “CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION – pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.9: Andrea Rodriguez and Calvin Prieto v. City of Antioch et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case Number C21-02687.”  But no reportable action was taken during the meeting.

Officers Represented by Civil Rights Attorneys

The officers are represented by three attorneys from the Dhillon Law Firm in San Francisco, including nationally known civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon, founder of the Center for American Liberty.

When reached for comment, one of the attorneys for the officers, Jesse Franklin-Murdock, wrote, “Officers Rodriguez and Prieto are hardworking and community-minded public servants. They served the City of Antioch with integrity and professionalism. Officer Rodriguez suffered gender-based discrimination and a hostile work environment at the Antioch Police Department, and both officers suffered retaliation after they opposed illegal, discriminatory practices at APD.”

“Councilmember Torres-Walker further defamed Officer Prieto by telling vicious lies about him in a profane video, and then sought professional retribution against him because her anti-police animus,” Franklin-Murdock continued. “Our office looks forward to seeking justice for both officers and sending a message to the City of Antioch that a culture of discrimination and retaliation cannot continue.”

“The action is indeed in the Martinez division,” the attorney shared. “The Case Management Conference is open to the public and members of the media. It is generally a routine scheduling conference where the court will set case deadlines.”

City Attorney Doesn’t Respond to Questions About Lawsuit

On Friday, Feb. 25, 2022, questions were emailed to City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith and Torres-Walker, copying the other four council members and former Antioch Police Chief Tammany Brooks asking, “does the city attorney represent a council member if they’re being sued as an individual? Or would they need to get their own counsel? Also, do you have any comments about the lawsuit and what do you expect to result from the Case Management Conference scheduled for May 17, 2022?”

None of them had responded to the email as of Wednesday, March 2, 2022, at noon.

Torres-Walker Doesn’t Know, Yet if City Attorney Will Represent Her or She Needs Outside Counsel

When asked directly if she had to obtain her own legal counsel or if the city attorney is representing her, Torres-Walker responded, “That’s still not clear but I have reached out for consultations.” Asked for clarification, if she had reached out to City Attorney Smith or an outside attorney she responded, “Outside.”

City Doesn’t Respond to Lawsuit

When asked for a copy of the City’s response to the officers’ lawsuit, Rakia Grant-Smith, Executive Legal Assistant for City Attorney Smith wrote, “The City of Antioch received your request for a “copy of a response to the lawsuit on behalf of the City” in regards to the Prieto-Rodriguez complaint. It has been determined that the record sought does not exist.”

In response, they were asked, “isn’t it common practice to respond to a lawsuit within 30 days?”

In addition, Franklin-Murdock was informed of the city attorney’s office claim and asked, Is that true? If not, do you have what the City provided? If it is true, isn’t that unusual for a party to not respond to a lawsuit?”

As of Wednesday, March 2 at noon, neither the city attorney’s office, nor Franklin-Murdock had responded.

City Attorney, Interim Police Chief Won’t Say if New Investigator Hired

Last fall, City Attorney Smith and then-City Manager Ron Bernal said they would hire another outside investigator.

Questions were sent Friday afternoon, Feb. 25 to Smith and Interim Police Chief Tony Morefield asking, “has another outside investigator been hired for the investigation into the police incident with Councilwoman Torres-Walker’s sons riding their dirt bikes on city streets? If so, when did that occur and is that investigation completed? If not, is that currently ongoing? If not, do you still plan to hire another outside investigator in the matter, please?”

As of Wednesday, March 2 at noon, they had not yet responded.

Interim Police Chief Offered Opportunity to Respond to Accusations Against Department

On Wednesday afternoon, March 2, 2022, Interim Police Chief was also sent a copy of the lawsuit and given the opportunity to respond on behalf of the department.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Claim they’re best friends, have each other’s back, threaten those who “mess with” them, speak of ice fishing, prostitution and refer to them as “funny”

They, three council members, city staff refuse to answer questions on appropriateness, if they rented the chambers, who has access to and proper use of chambers

“I personally believe the chambers should be used for their intended purpose, which is for official city business” – Councilman Barbanica

“The Council Chambers usage is controlled by the City Clerk!” – former City Clerk Arne Simonsen

By Allen D. Payton

Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe and City Clerk Ellie Householder have made and posted to his TikTok account, on Feb. 16, three videos in which they can be seen mouthing the words of others about ice fishing, prostitution, and how they have each other’s back and that those who “mess with” them “better pray and run”, taken inside the City Council Chambers in February.

The words on the first video made in the council chambers, read “When the Mayor and City Clerk have each other’s back.” In it, Thorpe and Householder are seen standing next to each other behind the council dais, while he points to her and himself, mouths the words of a speaker saying “she’s my best friend. You mess with her, you mess with me, you mess with me, you mess with her. You mess with us, you better pray and run.”

The hashtags include #antiochmayor, #sfbayarea, #eastbay, #politics, #mayor, #cityclerk, #fyp, #trending, #politics, #blacktictok, #gotmyback, #friends, #antioch.

In a second video with the hashtags #duetwithme, #fypシ, #fyp (meaning For You Page), #trending, #funny, #bait, #hudsonspringspark, #hudsonohio, #citycouncil, #mayor, #iceshanty, and #icefishing, Thorpe is seen sitting in his mayor’s chair at the council dais and mouthing the words of someone else speaking of ice fishing and ice shanties leading to prostitution. Householder mouths the words “what kind of bait are you using?”

In the third TikTok video with the hashtags #fypシ, fyp, #mayor, #cityclerk, #funny, #citycouncil, #dontdothat, #dontdothatchallenge, #duetwithme, the words on the front read, “When the City Clerk doesn’t let Mayor end the meeting early”. Householder mouths the words of a speaker, “don’t do that” while pointing her finger at Thorpe, who is, again seen seated in his chair at the council dais. He responds mouthing the words, “I’m not doing anything”

In some of his other TikTok posts, Thorpe refers to himself as #dopeblackmayor. According to Dictionary.com, “a dope can be a fool, a slang term for ‘excellent’, or refer to drugs like marijuana.”

Questions for Thorpe, Householder, Council Members, City Staff Go Unanswered

Questions were sent on Sunday evening, Feb. 27, 2022, to Thorpe, Householder, copying the other four council members, Interim City Manager Con Johnson and City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith asking, “what day and time were those videos filmed, there?

How long did you spend filming inside the chambers with the lights on?

Did you rent the use of the chambers and pay the city to do so?

Was anyone else from city staff there with you?

In the first video, you two claim to be best friends and that if anyone “messes with” you, they “better pray and run”. Could that be considered a threat to your political opponents, specifically those leading and supporting the recalls against each of you? If not, what do you mean by “mess with” you? Why would people who do, need to “pray and run”?

Also, do you believe prostitution is a humorous matter?

For all of you, is it appropriate for anyone to be using the council chambers, including sitting in the mayor’s chair, for such activities?

Who has keys and access to the council chambers when they aren’t being used for official city business?

Is there a city ordinance or policy on the use of the council chambers for non-official city business activities?

Can any of you point to a time in the past when the council chambers were ever used for such an activity?

Does the city ever rent out the use of the council chambers?

The last five questions were also sent to former Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen Tuesday morning, March 1.

Ogorchock, Barbanica Respond

Only District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock responded as of Tuesday morning, March 1 writing, “Good luck on getting a response. It doesn’t look good for Ellie to say she has his back!!”

When pressed further asking, again on Monday morning, “is it appropriate?”, Ogorchock did not respond.

UPDATE 1: When reached for comment, District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica said, “My belief is that it’s an honor to be able to sit in the chambers and preside over the city’s business. It degrades what it stands for. That room and those seats is for the purpose of conducting the business of the people of Antioch and believe it should be treated very serious. I personally believe the chambers should be used for their intended purpose, which is for official city business. People have plenty of other places to shoot videos.”

Asked who has keys to the council chambers he responded, “We all have keys. Our door cards work on the door to the Chambers. So, we have access to the Chambers, but I have never considered using them for anything other than official business for the people of Antioch.”

Simonsen Responds

UPDATE 2: Former City Clerk Simonsen responded to the questions as follows:

Is it appropriate for anyone to be using the council chambers, including sitting in the mayor’s chair, for such activities? “No.”

Who has keys and access to the council chambers when they aren’t being used for official city business? The Council Chambers usage is controlled by the City Clerk!!!”

Is there a city ordinance or policy on the use of the council chambers for non-official city business activities? “Yes, there is a policy. I don’t have it, however.”

Can any of you point to a time in the past when the council chambers were ever used for such an activity? “No.”

Does the city ever rent out the use of the council chambers? “Yes. The Council Chambers can be rented out. The Master Fee Schedule has the costs and security deposit.”

Please check back later for any other updates to this report.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

 

 

Torres-Walker’s suggested changes moves Ogorchock from District 3 to 4

By Allen D. Payton

During their special meeting study session on redistricting on Tuesday night, Feb. 22, 2022, the Antioch City Council, after voting against Map 91 again, and new Map 521, they chose to move that map forward along with a modified Map A, for consideration at another study session on March 8. A representative of Common Cause told the council the city could face a lawsuit from anyone in a neighborhood that is divided and warned them not do so in their final map choice.

Mayor Lamar Thorpe and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker asked the consultants of Q2 Data and Research to make modifications to Map A. Torres-Walker’s changes moves the neighborhood in which District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock lives, into District 4.

Had Map 91 been adopted, it would have resulted in the neighborhood in which District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson lives being moved into District 3, which means she could not run for re-election, in the November election, or would have had to move in order to live within the new District 4 boundaries.

The council reviewed all the maps, including three drawn by the consultants of Q2 and 12 submitted by members of the public. The 12 included three new submissions since the council’s Feb. 8 meeting at which they rejected both Maps B and 91, and the majority returned to Map A which four of the council members had previously rejected.

“We have a total of 15 maps, now,” said consultant Karin Mac Donald, owner and senior researcher of Q2. “We hope, tonight you will choose a final map that you can vote on at the meeting on March 7.”

City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith asked MacDonald to review all of the maps for the council and public, which Jane Hood of Q2 did.

Public Comments Again Support Map 91

Antioch resident Mark Jordan was the first to speak during public comments chastising City Clerk Ellie Householder for not having the minutes of this year’s council meetings on the city’s website, just like was the problem, last year. (See related article)

“First, it would be helpful if the City Clerk would post the minutes on the City website,” he said.

“On the 25th of January, you voted on two final maps. On the mayor’s Facebook page he said there were two map finalists. Then the mayor, on his own volition, decided to start over again. That’s the very definition of authoritarianism. It’s not democratic. It’s not what the 115,000 people of Antioch want.”

“The law was changed in 2019. AB849 was passed,” Jordan continued. “There were very specific requirements that were changed. Anyone can petition the Superior Court. Currently, you’re violating your own rules by backing up” and reconsidering Map A.

Sandy Hartrick spoke against Map A because it was the only option the council majority said they would consider and it “clearly divides a community of interest.”

William Chapman spoke next, saying, “My concern is in the continuity of the areas. I have worked in the past with campaigns. We need boundaries that are definable…that keep people together. The map needs to have districts that are bound by normal conditions, major roads. The communities should stay together as communities…as they vote.”

“A resident for going on 37 years in Antioch. I know it pretty well,” said Mary Chapman. “The only comment I have, tonight is to see the final map show all the council members…and not favor a particular political candidate.”

“The redistricting…as mandated by the law should follow state law. So, I read AB849,” said Tom Hartrick. “The map shouldn’t favor political parties or candidates. The map moved forward at the last meeting doesn’t follow that. It appears the public is speaking…if we are ignored the council is opening us up to a lawsuit under the FAIR MAPS Act.”

Lindsey Amezcua also spoke about the FAIR MAPS Act and the requirement on keeping neighborhoods and communities of interest together.

“Most of the maps violate state law,” she said. “There are three maps left that follow state law. It’s fiscally reckless to adopt any map that doesn’t follow state law.”

Alicia Taylor said, “I like Map 21 and not 91. But I must stick with my original and support 91….it follows major roads.”

Former Antioch Mayor and current School Board Trustee Mary Rocha said, “I thought you had made a decision. I don’t understand. I want to speak on Map 91. This map does not divide any communities of interest. It follows the Voting Rights Act. I’m still in support of Map 91.”

On Zoom, Harry Thurston, who spoke in favor of Map B during last meeting, this time spoke in favor of Draft Map A. It “most closely represents the demographics in the city,” he said.

Francisco Torres from ACE organization, who also supported Map B, during the last meeting, also spoke in favor of Map A.

Another speaker spoke in favor of Map A. “There’s five different criteria. The key word at the beginning is ‘to the extent practical’. I believe Map A does the best job. Nothing’s going to be perfect,” she said. “Map A is the most perfect of all the other ones. It was made by the professional contractors. Those who are saying it’s against the law are saying the professionals don’t know what they’re doing.”

Gretchen Egen, a member of the Martinez Independent Redistricting Commission said, “I am in favor of Map 91. Map A completely does not follow the criteria. Map 91 follows Lone Tree Way. I sat in the chambers during the lawsuit against Martinez. The only reason we lost was the Assembly bill passed in October 2019 had not yet passed.”

She said the council will be sued if they choose Map A.

“Your demographers don’t live there. But they said, ‘we don’t know your city,” she continued. “I implore you to listen

Dave asked the council “to adopt Map 91. It does not violate state law and is in the best interests of the city’s residents.”

Kaelen Perrochet, regional with California Common Cause, said, “We’d like to disabuse that the requirements of the FAIR MAPS Act are parameters, as Mayor Thorpe said at a previous council meeting. Partisan gerrymandering is illegal under state law. The mandate is to preserve the communities of interest. If the council does not…anyone in your city will have standing to sue. California Common Cause urges the city council to prioritize respecting…preserving communities of interest.”

Phillip Mobina said, “I want to vote for Map 91, the non-gerrymandered map. It’s clearly not gerrymandered to keep council members in their seats, so they don’t have to move.”

Council Discussion, Two Make Modifications to Map A

Mayor Lamar Thorpe said, “we have until April to get this done. This made-up stuff of gerrymandering is nonsense. To question people’s motives is wrong. Members of the public can share their thoughts.”

“If you look at the school district’s map, it divides communities of interest a lot more than we’re doing,” he added.

However, the FAIR MAPS Act does not apply to redistricting of school or special district boundaries.

District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock then made a motion to adopt Map 91 and Mayor Pro Tem and District 4 Councilman Mike Barbanica seconded the motion.

The motion failed 2-3 with Thorpe, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson voting no.

Torres-Walker then brought back up Map A.

“I support this map and I want to have a discussion about this,” she said.

The only concern I have about this, and I’ve had this concern for some time, and that’s the area south of James Donlon. I have had a concern that this portion of town now be in District 2. I’d like to look at the mapping tool…and see what that looks like.”

Consultant Jane Hood of Q2 then moved the Census Tracts south of James Donlon Blvd. from Districts 4 to 2, as in Maps 58, 91, 503, 512, 516 and 521.

Then Torres-Walker asked to keep using the mapping tool. She asked the consultant to move another section from Districts 3 to 4.

Thorpe then asked to move a section from Districts 2 to 3, using Garrow Drive instead of Lone Tree Way as the boundary.

“I’d like to look at 58, please because I believe that accomplishes that,” Barbanica then stated.

Thorpe then had Hood return to the area south of James Donlon Blvd. and divide the Mesa Ridge neighborhood between Districts 2 and 4.

“Silverado would be the street that would be the dividing line,” Thorpe said. “We can come back to this one.”

Barbanica then asked to look at 516 and 521. “Is there a difference between the two?”

“We have 512, 516 and 521. I said they are the exact,” said Hood. “They were slightly different and submitted by two different individuals.”

Barbanica then made a motion to adopt Map 521 and Ogorchock seconded the motion.

The motion would

“You can’t make that motion

“You can make a motion if that’s the final map he wants to select,” said Attorney Smith.

The motion failed 2-3 on the same split.

“I like what I’m seeing, here. I don’t mind bringing it back,” Thorpe then said. “We can bring back the one we’re working on.”

“I would like to bring the modified Map A, back,” Torres-Walker said.

“I think it’s still a working draft,” Thorpe responded.

Hood then showed the modified Map A.

“I would like to see that,” Torres-Walker said.

Both maps will be brought back at another study session on redistricting on March 8.

 

 

Fails to inform at least three council members about, invite two local media sources to press conference; not yet hired, must still go through background check and hiring process which could take weeks. Morefield still interim police chief.

“This is news to me. I had no idea this was going on and coming down, today.” – Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica

Announces proposed new Deputy Chief position

By Allen D. Payton

During a press conference in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, Wednesday morning, Feb. 23, 2022, Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe announced a new interim chief of police, San Francisco Police Commander Dr. Steve Ford, but didn’t inform at least two council members, and the city’s public information officer failed to invite at least two local media outlets about it. Only the Times, regional TV stations, and Antioch resident Frank Sterling who works at KPFA radio station were invited to attend. Both Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock were unaware of the announcement event until after. District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker was in attendance, but it’s unclear if District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson was.

When shown a screenshot of the Facebook Live video Thorpe posted on his official Facebook page and asked if he knew about the press conference after it had occurred, Barbanica responded, “This is news to me.”

“I spoke with the city manager last Friday for about 15 minutes and he didn’t say anything about this,” he continued. “I had no idea this was going on and coming down, today. The way I learned this happened was through you (referring to this reporter).”

Asked if he had received the same press release sent out by Rolando Bonilla, the city’s public information officer, that Judy Prieve of the East Bay Times said she received, yesterday, Barbanica said (while looking through his city council email account), “I cannot find a press release in here, at all, regarding this move.”

Ogorchock also said she didn’t know about the press conference until after it was over. Asked if she had received the press release from Bonilla, Orgorchock responded simply, “no, nothing.”

UPDATE #4 2/24/22: Dr. Ford has not yet been hired, as he must still go through the hiring process including a background check, which could take weeks. Morefield is still the city’s current interim police chief.

UPDATE #1: When reached for comment, Torres-Walker said she learned of the press conference from the Times’ Judy Prieve.

“Judy hinted to it as we were discussing a separate matter.She didn’t go into detail,” Torres-Walker said. “Another community member mentioned it, as well. So, I thought I would check it out.”

Announcement

Thorpe introduced Dr. Steve Ford, who according to his LinkedIn page is the Commander of Police, Community Engagement Division, since January 2021, for the San Francisco Police Department, where he said he has worked for 31 years. For the past 12 years he’s served in various leadership positions with the SFPD, including Commander of Police, Administration Bureau from 2019-21, Captain of Police, Strategic Management Bureau from 2018-19, Captain of Police, Bayview Station/Golden Gate Division, Operations Bureau from 2017-18, Lieutenant from 2010-2017 in which he held nine assignments within this rank. From 2015-16 he also served as Acting Captain of Police, Staff Services Division-Department of Human Resources.

Ford earned a Doctoral of Education degree in Educational Leadership from St. Mary’s College in 2020, a Master of Science degree in Emergency Services Administration from Long Beach State where he made the Dean’s List and a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice Administration from San Francisco State, where he also made the Dean’s List.

According to Thorpe, Ford’s doctoral dissertation was on community policing. He lives in Pinole, teaches at San Francisco State and plans to continue doing so.

Thorpe Takes Swipe at Department, Previous Police Chiefs

Before introducing Ford, Thorpe took a swipe at the Antioch Police Department and past chiefs hired from within.

“For far too long, Antioch’s Police Department’s pathway to the chief’s position was one that only looked inward from within the existing ranks, which does not work with the Antioch of today,” he said. “By taking the previous approach, our city has not been exposed to the best practices and the new ways of thinking which are so critical to an evolving police department and that are even more critical when wanting to change institutional culture.”

“Unit cohesion cannot be achieved when there isn’t a clear chain of command,” Thorpe continued. “Therefore, I will be advancing a measure that will immediately create a Deputy Police Chief position at the Antioch Police Department that focuses on long-term planning, particularly in addressing attrition, operational effectiveness and much more. We are no longer a small town on the Delta. We are one of the fastest growing cities in the Bay Area as well as one of the most racially diverse cities in the Bay Area.”

He then thanked “current Interim Chief of Police Anthony Morefield and the men and women of the police department for keeping our city safe.”

“I recognize that change is difficult,” Thorpe continued. “But that difficulty can never get in the way of our pursuit to become a better city. It is only through this pursuit that we will be able to keep our city safe while simultaneously making every single resident in our city feel positively connected to our police department.”

Ford Also Takes Swipe at APD, Claiming Need for “Restoring and Bolstering Community Trust”

During the press conference Ford spoke briefly saying, “First and foremost, thank you Mayor Thorpe for having the confidence in me to lead this organization…I certainly appreciate this incredible opportunity.”

It is not clear who made the decision to hire Ford. But the mayor doesn’t have the authority to hire the police chief or interim police chief, only the city manager does, who hires all the department heads in the City of Antioch. Interim City Manager Con Johnson has been given full authority and duties by the city council to hire and fire department heads.

“Restoring and bolstering community trust is critical and I look forward to establishing meaningful relationships with our schools, our businesses, our neighborhoods, our faith-based groups and most importantly and specifically, our youth,” Ford continued. “I look forward to bringing my experience as a practitioner and academic and researcher, to make these goals and aspirations a reality for this organization and our community, as a whole.”

“To Mayor Thorpe, again, our city council all inclusive, and City Manager Johnson, thank you, again sincerely for trusting me to lead this organization. It is truly an honor I don’t take lightly,” the new interim chief concluded.

More About Dr. Ford

On his LinkedIn page, Ford wrote about his background, “A highly accomplished, knowledgeable and hands-on law enforcement leader and academic administrator with extensive formal education, exceptional administrative/communication skills and extensive university administrative experience, seeking to contribute and utilize a multitude of skills and abilities in a leadership position within a progressive organization.”
Also on his LinkedIn page, Ford lists his Summary of Qualifications as:

√ Excellent communication and interpersonal abilities in leading, administrating, training, supervising and motivating employees to achieve uniform goals and objectives for the betterment of society.

√ Impeccable work ethic; prepared to go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure optimal performance.

√ Organized and detail-oriented; skilled at management of time and resources.

√ Diverse breadth of experience; demonstrated success in a wide spectrum of environments including with data-backed, community-centered solutions.

√ Proactive yet diplomatic attitude; interact effectively with superiors, co-workers and community members.

√ Keen investigative skills; oversee long-term investigations to bring resolution to a wide range of major criminal complaints.

√ Strong communicator; able to explain complex concepts in simple terms.

Finally, Ford lists his Core Competencies as: Law Enforcement Management, Diversity & Inclusion, Personnel Mentorship/Team-Building, Crime Data Interpretation, Governance & Oversight, Innovative Leadership, Strategic Planning, Budget Management, Community Liaison, Cultural Competency, Interviews & Interrogations, Multi-Agency Investigations.

According to his bio page on the SFPD website, “Commander Steven A. Ford grew up in San Francisco’s Ingleside district in the Oceanview and attended high school in Daly City. His law enforcement background spans over 30 years and includes assignments in Operations, Investigations, Administration, Special Operations, and Professional Standards-Strategic Management bureaus. Specific positions such as Internal Affairs, Professional Standards-Principled Policing, Staff Services, and serving as the Commanding Officer of Bayview Station resonate most. In addition, Commander Ford serves as adjunct faculty at San Francisco State University and City College where he instructs administration of justice and public administration course work. Moreover, Commander Ford is a published researcher-author in the areas of community policing theory, organizational structure theory, and participative management-procedural justice theory, as well as the nexus between those frameworks and what constitutes a “legitimate” community policing organization.

Commander Ford has also attended the California Police Chiefs Executive Leadership Institute, Drucker Mgt.-Claremont Graduate University, California POST Command College, California POST Executive Development, Sherman Block Supervisory Leadership Institute, and San Francisco Leadership-Chamber of Commerce.

Commander Ford considers his leadership and professional philosophy to be that of a contemporary leader who values the history of the profession, is focused on current challenges, and has a vision for the future of policing. Commander Ford is personable, approachable, nurturing, and responsive.”

Thorpe Wouldn’t Let Ford Answer Questions

Thorpe then took questions from those members in the media in attendance, and wouldn’t allow Ford to answer any of them, including those directed to him.

“I have absolute confidence that Dr. Ford will be able to carry them out,”

“We have an attrition problem in Antioch,” Thorpe said regarding the current lack of police staffing. As of last month, the department was down 21 sworn officers from the 115 approved in the budget, to just 94 actively working. (See related article)

Asked what Ford’s priorities would be, Thorpe answered saying, “

“Hiring externally is a change,” Thorpe said in response to a question about police reform.

Asked when the last police chief was hired from outside the department he responded, “I believe the last three were hired internally. But Chief Hyde was hired from the outside.”

Actually, it was the last two police chiefs, Allan Cantando and Tammany Brooks who were hired from within the department. Prior to Cantando, Jim Hyde was hired, and prior to him, Chief Mark Moczulski was hired from within the department.

Asked by Sterling “can we hear from the chief, at all on any of our questions? Is that possible, today or are we not hearing from the chief, anymore?” Thorpe responded, “I’ll be fielding the questions.”

“So, that’s a no,” Sterling asked, pressing further. “Yes,” said Thorpe.

Questions for Council, City Staff

Asked if Dr. Ford was introduced to Councilmembers as has been past practice, Ogorchock said, “the interim city manager did not even let me know about us getting a new interim police chief.”

Attempts to reach Wilson asking if she knew about the press conference, was invited to attend and in attendance were unsuccessful prior to publication time.

Current Interim Chief Tony Morefield was asked if he knew about the hiring of Ford and if he is the new deputy chief, he did not respond.

In addition, the following questions were sent to Thorpe, Johnson, Bonilla, the other four council members, City Attorney Thomas L. Smith and Morefield:

“Why hold a press conference announcing a major issue of the hiring of a new interim chief of police and not inform or invite at least two of the council members, including the current mayor pro tem, nor two of the three local members of the press who actually cover city government on a regular basis? While Tamisha was there, as Lamar pointed toward her and made a comment about her, was Monica informed of and invited to it?

As for Dr. Ford, who hired him? Was it Lamar or Con? Because the first thing Ford said was, “First and foremost, thank you Mayor Thorpe for having the confidence in me to lead this organization.” So, it sounds like it was Lamar’s decision. The mayor doesn’t have that authority, nor does the council, because the chief doesn’t answer directly to them. It’s the city manager’s job and Con has been given full authority to hire and fire department heads.

Also, when was the decision made to hire Dr. Ford?

Why wasn’t this announced at last night’s council meeting so all the council members could know about it and choose whether not to attend?

Why, as has been past practice, didn’t the council members have the opportunity to meet Dr. Ford before he was hired? Or were some of them offered that opportunity and not others?

Was Rolando instructed to not inform Mike Burkholder (of East County Today) and me of today’s announcement event?

Was, now former, Interim Police Chief Tony Morefield made aware of it before today’s announcement?

As for the attrition in the police department mentioned by the mayor during the announcement event, what do you think are the root cause or causes of it?

Dr. Ford said, ‘Restoring and bolstering community trust is critical.’ With whom in the Antioch community does the trust need to be restored and bolstered? Upon what is he basing that viewpoint?

Also, for Lamar, how can you claim the Antioch Police Department hasn’t followed best practices just because past police chiefs were hired from within?

They have had training by POST that Dr. Ford has according to his bio on the SFPD website and have had FBI training, as well.

What ‘best practice’ had the APD not been deploying?”

In addition, a formal Public Records request was made for any and all correspondence between any and all city staff and council members with and/or regarding Dr. Ford and his hiring as interim police chief.

UPDATE #2: Questions from the Public

More questions from members of the public about hiring Dr. Ford were asked of the same council members and city staff:

“Why do they need an interim chief when they already had one? Is it to slide him in without oversight as an ‘inside’ candidate so he doesn’t have to go through a formal process? Did they mention he and Con are friends and worked together for years in SF? How long did Con and Dr. Ford work together and in what capacity?

How was Ford selected? Was anyone else considered? Will they make him go through the same hiring process as any other lateral police officer coming to Antioch, including a full police officer background, polygraph, psych evaluation and medical?”

In addition, a formal Public Records Act request was made for any and all correspondence between any and all city staff and council members with and/or regarding Dr. Ford and his hiring as interim police chief.

UPDATE #3: Ogorchock Asks Similar Questions, Interviewed by TV News

In response Ogorchock wrote in an email Wednesday evening, “I gave an interview for KRON 4, it’ll run tonight. I asked those questions myself. Here are others I asked: Was there an interview process, or was this pre-planned? When was the first conversation with Dr. Ford about this position? Was this favoritism as they both came from SFPD?”

“Councilmember Torres Walker and the mayor made public statements about the need to hire the next police chief through a public process,” Ogorchock continued. “There was no transparency as I had no knowledge of this happening. Purely frustrated, the Interim City Manager should not be hiring the next police chief, that should be the responsibility of the CM as that individual and the Chief will be working together. We as council should have no say in PD matters as we have no experience in this field, only Mayor Pro-Tem Barbanica has. That is the sole responsibility of the CM.”

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Also, extends distance from, clarifies limits on new tobacco retailers

“This is ridiculous to tell adults what they can put in their bodies” – Councilman Barbanica

By Allen D. Payton

During their Tuesday meeting on Feb. 22, 2022, on a 4-1 vote the Antioch City Council approved another marijuana business, this one growing, manufacturing, selling and delivering cannabis supplements. The council then voted to clarify thir xisting ban on additional tobacco retail businesses on a 5-0 vote and on a 3-2 vote approved a ban on the sale of certain tobacco products in the city.

Approve Natural Cannabis Supplement Business

The additional marijuana business will include growing, manufacturing, selling and delivering cannabis supplements. According to the city staff report, “The applicant proposes to operate a cannabis operations facility consisting of a Type 10 ‘Retail Storefront and Delivery’, a Type 11 ‘Distributor’, a Type 7 ‘Manufacturer’ and a Type 3A ‘Medium Indoor Cultivation’ license located at 2100-2300 Wilbur Avenue” which is currently an undeveloped dirt lot. Natural Supplements Cannabis Facility ACC022222

District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock offered the lone opposition vote.

Extends Distance From, Clarifies Limits on New Tobacco Retailers

The council then voted unanimously to require new tobacco businesses to be at least 1,000 feet from schools and similar uses, such as public parks, playgrounds, recreational centers, or childcare centers. and clarified the city’s existing limits on new tobacco retailers in Antioch. Prior to the vote, the City’s municipal code required at least 500 feet between a business selling tobacco and a school or aforementioned uses. Distances & Limits on New Tobacco Retailers ACC022222

Ban Certain Tobacco Product Sales

In addition, on a 3-2 vote, with District 4 Councilman Barbanica and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker voting against, the council approved a ban on certain types of tobacco products in the city. According to the city staff report, the council approved the “Ordinance Amending Section 6-8.02 of the Antioch Municipal Code to Add the Definitions of Characterizing Flavor, Cigar, and Little Cigar (including Cigarillo) and Amending Section 6- 8.14 Both to Restrict Tobacco Retailers or Businesses from Selling or Providing Tobacco with Characterizing Flavor, Selling or Providing Electronic Cigarettes or E-Cigarettes, and To Regulate the Size and Price of Specified Packages of Cigarettes, Little Cigars, and Cigars.” Ban on Certain Tobacco Product Sales ACC022222

The proposed amendment would: Add the definition of “characterizing flavor”

Prohibit the sale of tobacco or tobacco products with characterizing flavor

Prohibit a tobacco retailer or business from selling, offering for sale, possessing with the intent to sell, offer in exchange for any form of consideration, or provide at no cost any electronic cigarette or e-cigarette for use with tobacco or tobacco products

Add the definitions of “cigars” and “little cigars,” with the latter including cigarillos

Prohibit a tobacco retailer or business from selling, offering for sale, possessing with the intent to sell, offering in exchange for any form of consideration, or providing at no cost any package of fewer than twenty little cigars, any package of fewer than six cigars and any package of cigarettes, little cigars or cigars at a price that is less than ten dollars per package, including applicable fees and taxes.

Speakers During Public Comments Opposed to Ban

Local retailers and an industry representative spoke against the ban encouraging the council instead wait for a vote on a statewide measure planned for the November ballot, so that there would be a level playing field should it pass.

Before the council vote, in opposing the ban Barbanica said, “it’s ridiculous to tell adults what they can put in their bodies.”

Torres-Walker supports in spite of pointing out “great concern” in her neighborhood

By Allen D. Payton

During their regular meeting on Tuesday, February 22, 2022, the Antioch City Council approved a transitional housing zoning overlay district on a 3-2 split vote for the Executive Inn on East 18th Street, moving forward a plan for the motel to be used for homeless residents. It allows the owner to apply for a use permit for the motel to be converted to a transitional housing facility. After first making a motion to approve the zoning change, Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock withdrew her motion and then along with Councilman Mike Barbanica, voted against it. Transitional Housing Zoning Overlay District ACC022222

Council Doesn’t Finalize Lease with Congressman McNerney

At the beginning of the meeting, City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith reported out of closed session that the negotiations with Congressman Jerry McNerney regarding the lease of office space in the Antioch Community Center at Prewett Family Park, “price and terms of payment, there was no reportable action.” The negotiations occurred following the attempt by Interim City Manager Con Johnson to evict the congressman whose lease runs through Jan. 3, 2023.  (See related article)

Transitional Housing Zoning Overlay District

Community Development Director Forrest Ebbs provided a brief overview of the transitional housing zone overlay district for only the Executive Inn at 515 E. 18th Street, which was proposed to be used for Antioch’s homeless residents during a press conference by then-Councilman Lamar Thorpe and then-Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts in July 2020. (See related article)

“This is about a zoning overlay,” Mayor Thorpe said, attempting to narrow the focus of the public hearing. “There will be plenty of time to discuss the actual use at the planning commission.

Andrew Becker was the only member of the public to speak.

“I don’t think that the director dove into transitional housing and the requirements for transitional housing,” he said. “I sent him and the council…the state’s definition of transitional housing in 2007 the state of California and passed legislation, that mandated that cities allow for transitional housing…holding those developments to the same standards. That’s a permanent by-right transaction.”

“If you look at page A3 in your packet…you will see residential uses,” Becker continued. “You will see at the bottom this new transitional housing overlay. You will see all of these residential areas…in all of those columns it doesn’t show a permitted use for transitional housing. Instead, it shows one restrictive use for transitional housing for all the City of Antioch…that isn’t even residentially zoned. It’s zoned hospitality. You’ve said developers can come in and build a permitted development. It would allow the review and could be shot down by the planning commission. I equate that to redlining.”

“The housing element must have the same standards as other residential zoning,” he continued. Becker proposed zoning the entire city for transitional housing.

Council Discussion and Vote

Torres-Walker asked Ebbs to respond to what Becker said

“We have a new housing element coming forward that will…be fully compliant with all state laws,” Ebbs explained.

“Should we be waiting for the housing element before moving forward on this?” Torres-Walker asked.

“It wouldn’t affect this zoning change,” Ebbs responded.

“It would provide for commercial zone for just this property?” Torres-Walker then asked.

“We can always come back” for other changes, Ebbs said.

Ogorchock asked, “What about the neighborhood and Rocketship school?”

“We’ve met with them,” Thorpe said. “The city manager and assistant city manager met with them.”

“The parent group was notified of this meeting,” said Assistant City Manager Rosanna Bayon Moore.

“There will be a use permit hearing before the planning commission,” Ebbs pointed out.

Ogorchock then moved approval of the creation of the transitional housing zoning overlay district. It was seconded by Monica Wilson.

Barbanica then said, “I know I’ve been at odds with several people on this. I believe, as I’ve stated all along…it is my belief that this is harmful to that area, to the businesses.”

“This is just an overlay on that property. It says we can do this if we choose,” Ogorchock pointed out.

“Without this that would be a dead issue, correct?” Barbanica asked Ebbs.

“That’s correct. They could not apply for a use permit at this location,” Ebbs said.

“We can’t keep kicking this can down the road. I believe this overlay is the right direction,” Wilson said. “This has been an issue for many years. It has to be addressed. We need to stop and pause. We listen to people online bully us. Let’s vote on this.”

“I’m going to support this, tonight,” Torres-Walker stated. “What makes me not want to vote for this is it should be citywide, not just one property. Spreading out the responsibility citywide just makes sense. Nobody up here lives in that community. But I do and there’s great concern.”

“I don’t believe the can has been kicked down the road,” Barbanica responded pointing out what the current council has done to assist the homeless, providing them motel vouchers and helping some get into the county’s Delta Landing facility at the former Motel 6 in Pittsburg.

“Mayor, I withdraw my motion,” Ogorchock then said.

Thorpe then asked Wilson if she withdrew her second, saying, “if you don’t withdraw your second then the motion stands.”

Wilson said she didn’t.

However, Attorney Smith corrected him saying, “She can withdraw her motion, but obviously someone else can make a new motion.”

Wilson then made the motion to approve the overlay district.

“I just want to say, for years we’ve said, ‘it’s the county’s responsibility’,” Thorpe said. “We took our time to do our homework. We recognized…the city is not an expert in social services. We also realized if we continue to rely on the county, we’re going to be going in circles.”

“The biggest concern is…when we move them from corner to corner this is no place for them to go,” he continued. “They aren’t randomly showing up. They have a connection to this community. Those are the challenges that we face.”

“We are committed to solve homelessness, not put a bandaid on it,” Thorpe continued. “It’s never been about limiting. It’s about doing something, and we have to start somewhere.”

The motion then passed 3-2 with Wilson, Torres-Walker and Thorpe in support.