120.2 hours of work to determine all her complaints against police officers during Dec. 2020 traffic stop of her sons were baseless

By Allen Payton

The cost to the City of Antioch for the outside investigation demanded by District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker into the incident between police, her sons and her last December was $44,610 the city attorney’s office revealed, Monday. In addition, they reported it consumed a total of 120.2 hours for the investigator, billed at $420 per hour, a writer/editor billed at $180 per hour, and an intern, billed at a rate of $120 per hour, to complete their work. A breakdown of their individual costs was also requested of the city attorney’s office.

The investigation, conducted by Oppenheimer Investigations Group, focused on what started as a traffic stop by two Antioch Police officers of Torres-Walker’s two sons, an adult and a 13-year-old, riding a dirt bike and ATV quad illegally on city streets, on December 29, 2020. The older son fled the scene, for which he was later charged with evading police and is still pending. He went home and returned with his mother. Things then escalated with accusations by Torres-Walker against the officers, and continued with an online, profanity-filled video rant against the officers and the department.

The investigation determined that all the councilwoman’s complaints against the two officers were either unfounded or not sustained, according to the executive summary of the report, which was released earlier this month. (See related article)

Ironically, Torres-Walker is now the chair of the city council’s Police Oversight Standing Committee which has its next meeting Tuesday afternoon. (Please see related article)

All five council members serving on committee, will make recommendations to themselves; will council choose new chief instead of city manager?

By Allen Payton

Acting as the Police Oversight Standing Committee, the entire Antioch City Council will consider voting to recommend to themselves a “policy banning restraints, holds, tactics and maneuvers that pose a substantial risk of positional asphyxia”, changes to the “police chief recruitment and hiring process”, as well as Antioch Police Department Policy 300: Use of Force”.  The meetings are now held before the council’s second regular meeting of the month on the fourth Tuesday, and tomorrow’s will be begin at 4:00 p.m.

The committee was to only consist of District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, who serves as chair, and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock, who serves as vice chair. However, this will be the fourth meeting of the committee with all five council members included, although according to the minutes of the committee’s July 13th meeting, Mayor Lamar Thorpe “stated he asked for the entire City Council to attend, and it will be temporary.”  (See agenda)

For the first two agenda items the recommended action is for the committee “to recommend that the City Council approve a policy by formal action at a regular meeting of the Antioch City Council” or “provide direction to staff to revise the policy in accordance with the standing committee’s instructions.” The third item only includes the option to “accept the presentation”.

Ban On Restraints

According to the staff report on the item, “during the Regular Council Meeting on August 24, 2021, the City Council directed the City Manager and the City Attorney to work with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Police Oversight Standing Committee and the Antioch Police Department to develop a new policy.”

A draft policy, on banning restraints potentially causing positional asphyxia that could result in unconsciousness or death, is included with Tuesday’s meeting agenda. The staff report reads, “Command Staff and subject matter experts from the Antioch Police Department researched existing Positional Asphyxia policies from around the world, including medical expert opinions on the matter. In addition, the City team examined federal and state laws which guide law enforcement use of force along with reports on industry best practices.

On September 7, 2021, staff met with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Police Oversight Standing Committee to review the gathered materials and receive further guidance. A draft Positional Asphyxia Policy was created and underwent further revision by Police Department staff.”

Furthermore, according to the staff report, “The Police Department contracts with a company called Lexipol which designs web-based policy manuals and training for law enforcement agencies all over the United States. Lexipol further provides a full library of customizable, state-specific law enforcement policies that are updated in response to new state and federal laws and court decisions. Through multiple meetings, the consensus of the City team was that this policy should exist as a stand-alone policy. The…Positional Asphyxia Policy was drafted in Lexipol and is consistent with federal and state guidance as well as industry best practices.”

Following are the “Positional Asphyxia Requirements” in section 3 of the draft policy:

“Officers shall comply with the following conduct concerning positional asphyxia: a) A person lying on their stomach in a face-down position may have difficulty breathing. An officer shall only physically force a person to a face down position when reasonably necessary to do so to protect the safety of the person, the officer, or pedestrians.

b) Immediately following the application of force or restraint of a person, and as soon as it is safe to do so, officers shall position a person in a recovery or seated position to allow for free breathing and to avoid positional asphyxia.

c) Any body-to-body contact or officers’ placement of weight on a person must be transitory. Officers shall not forcibly hold down or place weight on a prone person any longer than reasonably necessary to safely restrain the person. As soon as practicable, an officer’s weight on a person shall be removed. Officers shall be aware of the amount and duration of any weight placed on a person.

d) If officers hold a person down while restraining them, officers shall avoid placing weight on the person’s neck or head which can fracture the hyoid bone or cervical spine. No more than two officers shall place weight on a person’s upper body or torso. If additional assistance is needed, an additional officer or officers may restrain a person’s limbs to restrict their movement.

e) Once officers safely restrain a person, officers shall not sit, kneel, stand, or place their weight on a person’s chest, back, stomach, or shoulders.

f) Officers must inquire about a restrained person’s well-being, including, but not limited to, that person’s recent use of drugs, any cardiac condition, or any respiratory conditions or diseases. Officers shall recognize and respond to risks such as the person saying that they “can’t breathe”, gurgling or gasping sounds, panic, prolonged resistance, the lack of resistance, etc. Officers must be aware of environmental factors, including the nature and temperature of the surface on which they are restraining a person. For example, holding a person down on a hot surface, or in mud or water, can cause other injury or impair breathing.

g) If a person continues to resist after being restrained, officers must check if any resistance is related to a person’s difficulty breathing. When a person has their breathing restricted, the person may struggle more. What officers perceive as resistance may be an indication that the person is struggling to breathe.

h) Officers shall share any relevant information regarding a person’s condition, medical condition, what has transpired during their interaction, or any information about drug or alcohol use, which might be medically relevant, to other officers, personnel, or individuals administering medical aid. If there has been any restriction to a person’s breathing, such information is medically relevant and shall be shared at the first practical opportunity.

Persons who exhibit extreme agitation, violent irrational behavior accompanied by profuse sweating, extraordinary strength beyond their physical characteristics and imperviousness to pain, may be experiencing a serious medical condition and at risk of sudden death. Calls involving these persons should be considered medical emergencies. Officers who reasonably suspect a medical emergency should request medical assistance as soon as practicable and have medical personnel stage away if appropriate.”

New Police Chief Hiring Process

According to the staff report, Torres-Walker “requested that this item be placed on the agenda”. In addition, city “staff prepared a description of the City Manager’s recruitment and hiring process for the Chief of Police. The steps are described as follows:

1. Work in tandem with the Human Resources Department to review and update the job description and salary for the position as appropriate. Any changes to either would require City Council approval.
2. If an in-house candidate(s) exists, determine whether an internal or external recruitment best serves City goals and agency needs.
3. If an internal recruitment is the selected pathway, publish minimum qualifications, open the application process and establish the candidate pool. Review applications and invite qualifying applicants to the interview process.
4. If an external recruitment is the selected pathway, initiate the RFP process to solicit and select an executive search firm to conduct the recruitment. Once a firm is selected, contribute to brochure content and work with firm to establish the overall timeline and approach. Once adequate applicant pool is achieved, review applications and identify candidates for interview.
5. Utilize a panel interview format comprised of different audiences – city managers, public safety executives, department heads, police department personnel and community members.
6. Once the panel interview process informs the ranking of candidates, City Manager interviews the top candidate(s).
7. Conditional offer of employment is made to the top candidate.
8. Conduct a thorough background check which includes, credit history, criminal background, professional and personal references, neighbors. If an external candidate is selected, may visit finalist’s current / last place of employment to gather additional information.
9. Upon clearance of all conditions, make and announce appointment.”

Council To Hire New Chief? Choice Already Decided?

As a council-manager form of government, it is the responsibility of the city manager to hire the police chief, as one of the city’s department heads. The council hires the city attorney and city manager, and the latter hires all the department heads. Sometimes that’s done with input and/or approval by the council, other times not. According to the International City/County Management Association, “the elected officials hire a professional city, town, or county manager” and the manager, “recruits, hires, supervises, and terminates government staff”.

However, the word on the street is that some council members want the city council to choose the next chief to replace former Chief Tammany Brooks, who recently retired and accepted a position with the City of Boise, Idaho. In addition, while Antioch Police Captain Tony Morefield, as previously reported by the Herald, is the acting chief, one name floated to be the city’s next police chief is that of Cornelius “Con” Johnson, a retired San Francisco Police lieutenant. He was introduced last November, as a member of then-mayor-elect Thorpe’s “transition advisory team” to co-chair police reform, along with City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith.

Use of Force Policy

According to the staff report for the item, Torres-Walker “requested a presentation and review of the Antioch Police Department’s current Use of Force Policy”, as well. Lexipol was also used to develop it, as the department has contracted the company for the past six years, and the “Use of Force Policy…is consistent with federal and state guidance as well as industry best practices”.

The policy “provides guidelines on the reasonable use of force”. Furthermore, section 1, the Purpose and Scope of the policy reads, “while there is no way to specify the exact amount or type of reasonable force to be applied in any situation, every member of this department is expected to use these guidelines to make such decisions in a professional, impartial, and reasonable manner (Government Code § 7286).

In addition to those methods, techniques, and tools set forth below, the guidelines for the reasonable application of force contained in this policy shall apply to all policies addressing the potential use of force, including but not limited to the Control Devices and Techniques and Conducted Electrical Weapon (i.e. taser) policies.”

The nine-page policy includes information on a De-escalation Requirement, Factors Used to Determine the Reasonableness of Force, Pain Compliance Techniques, Alternative Tactics – De-escalation, Deadly Force Applications, Shooting At or From a Moving Vehicle, Display of Firearms; Reporting the Use of Force including Notification to Supervisors and to the California Department of Justice; Medical Consideration and assistance; Responsibility of Supervisors including Watch and Bureau Commanders; Training and Policy Availability for access by the public.

How To Provide Public Comment

Notice of Opportunity to Address the Standing Committee

Members of the public wishing to provide public comment may do so in the following way:

1) Prior to 3PM the Day of the Meeting – Written comments may be submitted electronically to the following email address: policeoversight@antiochca.gov. All comments received before 3PM the day of the meeting will be provided to the Police Oversight Standing Committee at the meeting. Please indicate the agenda item and title in your email subject line.

2) After 3PM the Day of the Meeting and During the Meeting: Oral comments can be submitted to the Police Reform Oversight Committee during the meeting with advance registration. You may register and attend the webinar by visiting   https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Qfj08tzhQg2lOh01zllM4w

– 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 public comments are announced, 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. Please be advised that the City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted. To ensure that the Standing Committee receives your comments, you are strongly encouraged to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting.

Tosses it onto City Hall parking lot, twice; later picks it up, has it framed and posts photo with it on Facebook

“We believe that the citizens of Antioch deserve better,” – Kathy Cabrera, recall proponent

9,400 signatures of registered Antioch voters needed within 160 days to qualify for the ballot

By Allen Payton

Less than a year into his four-year term, Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe was served with recall papers in the parking lot of City Hall, Friday afternoon, Sept. 24, 2021, by one of the 20 residents who signed them, including several community leaders. Antioch resident Kathy Cabrera served Thorpe, but he refused to receive the required, legal recall notice, going so far as to toss it out of his car onto the ground, video shows. (Download and watch the video, here: Thorpe served recall vid1  or see the video on the Herald Facebook page)

“Today, at 12:30 p.m. at the City Hall parking lot I served Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe with a notice of intention to circulate recall petitions,” Cabrera said when reached for comment. “He said he didn’t know who I was and wouldn’t accept service.”

Thorpe can be heard in the video saying, “I don’t know who you are. Get away from my car.”

She then tossed the paperwork into his car and Thorpe tossed it back out. Cabrera then picked it up and placed it under his windshield wiper repeating, “you’ve been served.  You’ve been served.” He got out of his car, took the recall notice off his windshield and tossed it on the ground, again and drove off.

According to Cabrera, after driving off Thorpe circled back and picked up the notice off the ground. Later, he took a photo with the document in a frame, which Thorpe posted on his official Facebook page.

When reached for comment, Cabrera offered some of the group’s reasons for recalling the mayor.

“We believe that the citizens of Antioch deserve better,” she said. “We’ve seen a variety of good city employees, businesses and residents leave during his tenure at mayor. The people of Antioch are frustrated with the political games, constant self-promotion, and his lack of leadership and in the wrong direction.”

“We are moving forward with the recall process and will soon be out gathering signatures to let the citizens’ voices be heard,” Cabrera added.

The Notice

More and the official reasons for recalling Thorpe are included in the notice which will be part of the petitions that Antioch voters will be asked to sign. Following is the text of the notice Thorpe was served, Friday:

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE RECALL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE Lamar Thorpe: Pursuant to Section 11020, California Elections Code, the undersigned registered qualified voters of Antioch, in the State of California, hereby give notice that we are the proponents of a recall petition and that we intend to seek your recall and removal from the office of Mayor, in Antioch, California, and to demand election of a successor in that office.

The grounds for the recall are as follows:

Disrespect for Council Members and the Public who disagree with you during City Council meetings. Blocking constituents and not allowing them to comment on your social media. You have failed to provide full support to the great men and women of the Antioch Police which is impeding their ability to keep our residents safe. As a result of your failed leadership it has led to the resignation of Police Chief Tammany Brooks who will be taking up a new post in Boise, Idaho; and the announced retirement of City Manager Ron Bernal. You put on the Council agenda to rescind the School Resource Officer Grant without any public input from the Antioch Unified School District (AUSD) Board or Administration after the Officers had been interviewed and selected. You misled the Public about when you were informed about the death of Angelo Quintos, when you had earlier received an email from Chief Brooks. You blamed business owners on Sycamore Drive for the crimes that are being committed by others that live nearby which does not reflect Antioch’s theme: “Opportunity Lives Here”.

————-

Signature Gathering Expected to Begin in October

“The petitions won’t be available until about three weeks,” said former Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen. He is one of the 20 recall proponents and was with Cabrera to submit the notice and the proof of personal service to the city clerk’s office, following the interaction with the mayor.

The Proponents

Besides Cabrera, who is the director of a non-profit organization for cats in the city, and Simonsen, the other 18 proponents represent a cross-section of residents in Antioch, including Antioch School Board Trustee Mary Rocha, former Antioch Planning Commission Chair, Ken Turnage II, who was removed by the council, last year, after posting controversial remarks about seniors and COVID on his Facebook page; former Councilwoman and current Planning Commissioner, Martha Parsons; Velma Wilson, the county’s 2021 Humanitarian of the Year; former Mello-Roos Board President, Terry Ramus; plus Tom Hartrick, Lindsey and David Amezcua, Ricardo Cabrera, Nicole Silva, Kathy Vasquez, James Davis (not the former Mayor of Antioch), Mary and Roy Ledford, Katherine J. Belleci, Truman Davis Jr., Clarke Wilson, James Wilson, and Thomas McNell, the co-author, with Ramus, of Antioch’s growth-metering ballot initiative Measure U that was passed by 69% of the vote in 1998.

The Process

The mayor has seven days to provide a response of no more than 200 words, which will be include on the recall petition for circulation for gathering signatures. But he’s not required to provide one.

The notice includes additional details about the process.

“Elections Code section 11023. (a) Within seven days after the filing of the notice of intention, the officer sought to be recalled may file with the elections official, or in the case of a state officer, the Secretary of State, an answer, in not more than 200 words, to the statement of the proponents.

(b) If an answer is filed, the officer shall, within seven days after the filing of the notice of intention, also serve a copy of it, by personal delivery or by certified mail, on one of the proponents named in the notice of intention.

(c) The answer shall be signed and shall be accompanied by the printed name and business or residence address of the officer sought to be recalled.”

UPDATE: According to the Procedure for Recalling State and Local Officials on the California Secretary of State’s website, and the Guide for Recalls on the Contra Costa County Elections website, organizers must gather the signatures of at least 15% of registered voters in Antioch, if the registration is between 50,000 and 100,000, to qualify the recall for the ballot. As of the November 2020 election, there were 62,394 registered voters in the city which requires they gather approximately 9,400 signatures within 160 days or about 59 per day on average.

Thorpe received 19,792 votes to win the election for mayor, last November out of 44,539 votes cast, for 44.44% of the vote. Should the recall make it to the ballot, just like in the recent gubernatorial recall election, he will face an up or down vote. In addition, a separate vote for the replacement candidates will decide who will be the city’s next mayor for the remainder of the term through Dec. 2024. If a majority of those voting, vote yes to recall Thorpe, the candidate with the most votes in the replacement election wins.

Past Antioch Recalls

Thorpe is the second Antioch mayor to be served with recall papers in the past 35 years, including Wade Harper in 2014 and 2015, and Joel Keller in 1986. But the attempts against Harper, by the same organizers, were unsuccessful, first due to improperly publishing the notice in the paper, and the revived effort failed to gather enough signatures. Organizers for the effort against Keller thought they had collected enough signatures and submitted them. But it didn’t make it to the ballot as it was tossed out by the county elections office after too many signatures were disqualified. Antioch School Board Trustee Debra Vinson was served with recall papers in 2016 but the effort didn’t make it to the ballot.

The last time a successful recall of an Antioch councilmember occurred was in 1995 when Councilwoman Elizabeth Rimbault was recalled. (This reporter also faced recall on the same ballot but beat it by 52-48%).

An effort to reach Thorpe for comment and asking him why he threw the notice on the ground, was unsuccessful prior to publication time.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Takes swipe at Board VP Lewis claiming he’s missed three “critical votes”

By Allen Payton

The Herald learned on Friday that in a post on Tuesday, on her blog, which has 11 followers, Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson took the unusual step of injecting herself and opinion into a school district issue, supporting Board President Ellie Householder’s efforts to fire Superintendent Stephanie Anello. The move failed with only four trustees in attendance at Tuesday night’s urgently called special closed session meeting, since Board Vice President Clyde Lewis was absent for a work conflict and personal matters. Because of that, Wilson took a swipe at him and claims he missed other “critical votes”, as well. (See related articles here and here)

Wilson also, once again, injected a race into an issue, by reminding Lewis that he’s the only Black member of the school board, and writing “our community cannot afford to lose another generation of students but in particular Black and Latino students.”

Statement from Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson Regarding Antioch Unified School District Special Meeting of September 21, 2021

“I’ve learned the hard way as an elected official that doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result, is the definition of insanity and only serves to reinforce the status quo.

For far too long, the Antioch Unified School District administration has created a subpar environment that has made it difficult for students, in particular students of color, to have the necessary support and environment for success in the classroom.

For this reason, I would like to take this moment to commend Board President Ellie Householder for having the courage to call for a special meeting in her efforts to change the leadership of the Antioch Unified School District’s administration.

As Board President Householder has said, this is a fight for the future of Antioch, as our community cannot afford to lose another generation of students but in particular Black and Latino students because they did not receive an adequate education.

I would also like to take this moment to publicly call on Dr. Clyde Lewis to be present at the meeting, and to vote in support of our students and families by supporting change.

As the only Black leader on the Antioch Unified School Board, Trustee Lewis needs to realize that we in the community have noticed his pattern of missing critical votes. We are watching, and are fully expecting him to rise to the moment, and vote for the children of Antioch.

To not be present for this vote would mark the third time that Trustee Lewis has missed a key vote. In doing so, he will be making it clear that he is not prepared for the pressures and intensity of serving in elected office.”

Questions for Wilson and Lewis

The following questions were sent to Wilson and Lewis early Friday afternoon.

Since it wasn’t posted on either her official Facebook page nor sent to the Herald, and her blog only has 11 followers, Wilson was asked, “did you not want that many people to read it? Was it part of an effort to run for school board or higher office, next year? Or was it to take a swipe at a potential political opponent, Board VP Clyde Lewis, who lives in the same council district you currently represent, in an attempt to eliminate your competition should you decide to run for reelection?”

In addition, she was asked, “do you think it’s appropriate for a council member to interject their opinion into school district business? Would you want school board members, other than (City Clerk) Ellie Householder, doing the same for city matters?” and “don’t you have enough city issues to deal with?”

Lewis was asked if he had any comments about Wilson’s blog post and “to which other critical votes do you think she’s referring?” He responded writing, “Leadership aims to build bridges and collaboration. I’m not really sure the aim of this statement, but I hope she is having a blessed day.”

09/27/21 UPDATE: Lewis offered additional comments on Monday, Sept. 27 writing, “I have no idea which votes she is referring. I have not missed but two meetings during my tenure, only one of which was a regularly scheduled meeting. I cannot speak to her motives and frankly, I’m more disappointed with the lack of attention given to students and solving issues in the community.”

Wilson had not yet responded as of Monday evening, Sept. 27.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Was set to expire at the end of this month

By Allen Payton

On Sept. 16, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361, entitled “Open meetings: state and local agencies: teleconferences,” extending the time period for online meetings of government agencies until Jan. 1, 2024. The current order allowing the online meetings until the end of this month, will expire on Oct. 1 under an executive order he signed, on Monday, Sept. 20.

According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, “This bill, until January 1, 2024, would authorize a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, during a proclaimed state of emergency held for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, and during a proclaimed state of emergency when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, as provided.”

However, government agencies can still choose to return to meeting in person. Both the Antioch City Council and Antioch School Board planned to return to in-person meetings next month. But now they will have the option to continue to hold their meetings online.

 

Investigators hired in January following demand by Councilwoman Torres-Walker

By Allen Payton

It began as a routine traffic stop of two brothers riding dirt bikes illegally on Antioch streets. But it turned into an online, anger-filled, profanity-laced diatribe by a newly elected, anti-cop councilwoman, that continued with her demand for an outside investigation and her filing of a formal complaint against the officers. That resulted in the hiring of an independent investigator who produced a report showing all of the councilwoman’s complaints about how she and her sons were mistreated were baseless. (See related articles here, here and here)

Over eight months after the incident between Antioch District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, her two sons and police officers occurred on Dec. 29, 2020, and over seven months after she demanded the investigation and filed the formal complaint, the Confidential Executive Summary of the investigative report from the independent investigator, Oppenheimer Investigations Group, has finally been released. It was made available Tuesday night by Antioch Police Chief T Brooks and describes each of the councilwoman’s claims as either “unfounded” or “not sustained”.

The investigation included interviews with Torres-Walker, APD Officers Calvin Prieto and Andrea Rodriguez, and five others, who were not named in the executive summary nor shared by Brooks, as it is a personnel matter. The investigation included video footage and documents. Those are part of the criminal report which is not yet available.

The Executive Summary provides details of what occurred during the traffic stop and confrontation of the officers by Torres-Walker, as well as your complaints and the findings by Vida Thomas of Oppenheimer.

See the six-page here Executive Summary of Report Concerning Complaint Filed by Tamisha Walker and below.

Questions for Torres-Walker

Torres-Walker was asked if she had the chance to read the Executive Summary and if she had any response or comments she wanted to share. In addition, the councilwoman was asked if she had seen the complete report, including the video footage and documents referred to on page 2, below the heading 1. Introduction and Scope?

She did not respond as of publication time.

Q&A With Chief Brooks

Asked if the complete Investigative Report has been provided to Councilwoman Torres-Walker, and/or the mayor and other council members, he responded, “No. They received the same document you did. The full investigative report is part of the officers’ personnel file and is confidential.  The executive summary was written specifically to provide publicly available information due to the public interest generated in this case.”

In addition, he was asked if the related video footage and documents were available to the public, what video footage was included in the investigation other than the councilwoman’s online rant and if there was cell phone video of the incident. Brooks responded, “Any/all video gathered regarding this incident is part of the criminal report, which is not yet publicly available.”

The criminal report is about the arrest of Torres-Walker’s older son, Yomani Mapp, for evading police after he didn’t stop, when the police attempted to pull him, over while he was riding a dirt bike. 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.

Follow up questions were sent to Brooks asking, “when will the criminal report be publicly available, please? And is it completed?” He responded, “The criminal report has been completed and a complaint was filed by the DA’s office.  However, the case has not yet been adjudicated.”

He was also asked if all the witnesses cooperated with the investigation and who were the other five witnesses. Did they include Torres-Walker’s sons, and residents of the nearby homes or other witnesses at or near the scene? “The executive summary is all the information being provided to the public,” Brooks responded. “The details of full investigation cannot be disclosed.”

Finally, he was asked why did it take over seven months to complete and is that common for outside, independent investigations? “Each investigation is unique and the time to complete them varies for differing reasons,” Brooks stated.

Investigation Cost

The contract for the investigation included payment of $420 per hour for the lead investigator, $180 per hour for an editor/writer and $120 per hour for an intern’s time, as well as other related costs of the investigation.  Brooks didn’t know how much it cost the city saying, “All legal services are paid through the city attorney’s office.” An email was then sent to City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith asking how many hours was spent on the investigation and the total amount the city has paid or will pay. He did not respond before publication time.

09/27/21 UPDATE: The cost to the City of Antioch for the outside investigation was $44,610 the city attorney’s office revealed, today. In addition, they reported it consumed a total of 120.2 hours for the investigator, a writer/editor and an intern to complete their work. A breakdown of their individual costs was also requested of the city attorney’s office. (See article)

CONFIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oppenheimer Investigations Group LLP September 1, 2021

I. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE

On January 14, 2021, the City of Antioch (“the City”) retained Oppenheimer Investigations Group LLP (“OIG”) to conduct an impartial investigation of Antioch City Councilmember Tamisha Walker’s complaint against Antioch Police Department (“APD”) officers Calvin Prieto and Andrea Rodriguez, who are assigned to APD’s Traffic Unit. Vida Thomas was the principal investigator.

On December 29, 2020, Prieto and Rodriguez, who were on patrol, observed Walker’s two sons, who were 23 years old and 13 years old at the time, riding a motorized, off-road dirt bike and an off-road ATV, respectively. The officers began pursuing the older son. After the pursuit, Prieto and Rodriguez detained the 13-year-old. In a formal complaint filed on January 27, 2021, Walker alleged that Prieto and Rodriguez dangerously pursued her oldest son, tried purposely to hit him with their patrol car, and verbally and physically mistreated the younger son while detaining him.1 (See Exhibit 1.) In an interview with the undersigned, Walker also alleged that both officers spoke discourteously to her younger son before she arrived at the scene, and that Prieto spoke discourteously to her once she arrived.

Once the scope of the investigation was determined and agreed upon, the investigator operated with complete independence as to witness identification, interview content, and preparation of findings. The investigation included interviews with eight witnesses – including Ms. Walker, Officer Prieto and Officer Rodriguez – a review of video footage, and a review of documents.

This is a Confidential Executive Summary of an Investigative Report. It is anticipated that this Report will be maintained confidentially by the decision-makers and will not be disseminated except as required by law or as determined by the decision-makers.

II. FINDINGS

At the request of APD, the investigator used the following findings used in APD administrative investigations, pursuant to Policy 1011.6.3. Thus, the investigator used these findings where applicable:

Unfounded – When the investigation discloses that the alleged acts did not occur or did not involve department members. Complaints that are determined to be frivolous will fall within the classification of unfounded (Penal Code § 832.8).

Exonerated – When the investigation discloses that the alleged act occurred but that the act was ustified, lawful and/or proper.

Not sustained – When the investigation discloses that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the complaint or fully exonerate the member.

Sustained – A final determination by an investigating agency, commission, board, hearing officer, or arbitrator, as applicable, following an investigation and opportunity for an administrative appeal pursuant to Government Code § 3304 and Government Code § 3304.5 that the actions of an officer were found to violate law or department policy (Penal Code § 832.8).

No Finding – The complainant failed to disclose promised information to further the investigation; the investigation revealed another agency was involved, and the complaint or complainant has been referred to that agency; the complainant wishes to withdraw the complaint or the complainant is no longer available for clarification.

A. FINDINGS CONCERNING OFFICER PRIETO

1. Did Officer Prieto engage in racial profiling of Walker’s sons? (Policy 401.3 – Bias- Based profiling Prohibited)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto engaged in racial profiling of Walker’s sons.

The evidence showed that, while patrolling along A Street as a normal part of their traffic enforcement duties, Prieto and Rodriguez saw Walker’s sons riding a dirt bike and an ATV on the wrong side of the street towards oncoming traffic, and creating a traffic hazard. The evidence also showed that Prieto and Rodriguez had a legitimate law enforcement reason, unrelated to race, for pursuing Walker’s sons.

2. Did Officer Prieto engage in a racially biased use of force towards either son? (Policy 300.2.2 – Fair and Unbiased Use of Force)

Unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto engaged in a racially biased use of force towards Walker’s sons. That evidence did not support a finding that Prieto tried to hit the older son with the patrol vehicle or run him off the road; had his hand on his taser as he exited the patrol car after stopping the younger son; pulled his taser when approaching the younger son; or pushed the younger son to the ground after he stepped off the ATV.

A preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that Prieto did handcuff the younger son, but only after the younger son engaged in behavior that gave the officer reasonable concern that he would be a harm to himself or others or attempt to flee. Therefore, the handcuffing complied with APD policy.

3. Did Officer Prieto engage in an unreasonable use of force towards Walker’s sons? (Policy 300.3 – Use of Force)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto tried to hit the older son with the patrol vehicle or run him off the road; had his hands on his taser while exiting the patrol car; pulled his taser when approaching the younger son; or pushed the younger son to the ground after he stepped off the ATV.

A preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that Prieto handcuffed the younger son while he was detained. However, the officer only did so after developing a reasonable concern that the younger son would harm himself or others or flee. Therefore, the handcuffing complied with APD policy.

4. Did Officer Prieto behave in an uncivil, disorderly, or unprofessional manner towards Walker’s younger son? (Policy 300.3.1 – De-Escalation Requirement)

Unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto behaved in an uncivil, disorderly, or unprofessional manner towards the younger son.

Walker reported that Prieto made rude comments to her younger son while he was being detained. Prieto denied making the comments, and Rodriguez denied hearing Prieto make the comments. The available video footage of the incident was not very revelatory. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence that Prieto made the comments ascribed to him.

5. Did Officer Prieto behave in an uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner towards Tamisha Walker? (Policy 1001.3.1(a) – Conduct Unbecoming-Neglect of Duty; Policy 1001.3.4(a) – Behavior During Public Contact)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Officer Prieto behaved towards Tamisha Walker in an uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner. The evidence showed that Prieto’s behavior complied with the APD’s interpretation of the applicable APD policy.

6. Did Prieto’s report fail to accurately reflect the December 29, 2020 incident? (Policy 326.1.1 – Report Preparation)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto’s report failed to accurately reflect the December 29, 2020 incident.

The Combined Case Report (“Report”) prepared by Prieto and Rodriguez (Exhibit 2), appears to comply with the requirements set forth in APD Policy 326.1.1. The Report accurately reflect the incident that occurred on December 29, 2020. Its description of the incidents is consistent with the evidence gathered during this investigation, including video camera footage. There is no evidence that anything in the Report is false.

B. FINDINGS CONCERNING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ

1. Did Officer Rodriguez engage in racial profiling of Walker’s sons? (Policy 401.3 – Bias-Based profiling Prohibited)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Rodriguez engaged in racial profiling of Walker’s sons.

The evidence showed that, while patrolling along A Street as a normal part of their traffic enforcement duties, Prieto and Rodriguez saw Walker’s sons riding a dirt bike and an ATV on the wrong side of the street towards oncoming traffic, and creating a traffic hazard. The evidence also showed that Rodriguez had a legitimate law enforcement reason, unrelated to race, for pursuing Walker’s sons.

2. Did Officer Rodriguez engage in a racially biased use of force towards either son? (Policy 300.2.2 – Fair and Unbiased Use of Force)

Unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Rodriguez engaged in a racially biased use of force towards Walker’s sons. That evidence did not support a finding that, while pursuing the sons on A Street, Rodriguez’s patrol car almost struck the older son and tried to run him off the road.

3. Did Officer Rodriguez engage in an unreasonable use of force towards Walker’s sons? (Policy 300.3 – Use of Force)

Unfounded. As set forth in the finding above, a preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Rodriguez tried to strike Walker’s sons while pursuing the older son.

Therefore, the allegation that Officer Rodriguez engaged in an unreasonable use of force towards Walker’s sons was unfounded.

4. Did Officer Rodriguez behave in an uncivil, disorderly, or unprofessional manner towards Walker’s younger son? (Policy 1001.3.1(a) – Conduct Unbecoming-Neglect of Duty; Policy 1001.3.4(a) – Behavior During Public Contact)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Rodriguez behaved in an uncivil, disorderly, or unprofessional manner towards the younger son.

Walker reported that Rodriguez made rude comments to her younger son while he was being detained. Rodriguez denied making the comments, and Prieto denied hearing Rodriguez make the comments. The available video footage of the incident was not very revelatory. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence that Rodriguez made the comments ascribed to him.

For these reasons, this allegation was not sustained.

5. Did Officer Rodriguez behave in an uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner towards Tamisha Walker? (Policy 1001.3.1(a) – Conduct Unbecoming-Neglect of Duty; Policy 1001.3.4(a) – Behavior During Public Contact)

Unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Officer Rodriguez behaved in an uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner towards Tamisha Walker.

It is undisputed that, throughout her encounter with Walker, Rodriguez behaved in a calm manner, using de-escalation techniques to address Walker’s concerns. However, Walker said that when Rodriguez initially called her from the scene to report that her younger son had been stopped, Rodriguez made a rude and unprofessional comment to her, a claim Rodriguez denied. There was no evidence to corroborate this claim and for this reason, this allegation was unfounded.

6. Did Officer Rodriguez’s report fail to accurately reflect the December 29, 2020 incident? (Policy 326.1.1 – Report Preparation)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Rodriguez’s report failed to accurately reflect the December 29, 2020 incident.

The Combined Case Report (“Report”) prepared by Prieto and Rodriguez (Exhibit 2), appeared to comply with the requirements set forth in APD Policy 326.1.1. The Report accurately reflected the incident that occurred on December 29, 2020. Its description of the incidents were consistent with the evidence gathered during this investigation, including video camera footage. There was no evidence that anything in the Report was false.

Respectfully submitted,

Vida Thomas

1 The names of Walker’s sons are withheld from this summary out of respect for their privacy. They are referred to herein as her older son and her younger son. Walker did not consent to her sons being interviewed

Attorney-Client Privileged

Only Barbanica wisely voted against; city doesn’t know the costs, yet; lawsuits over similar mandates filed, more expected; no meet and confer, yet with APOA; any policy must include the 3 CDC proclaimed “effective” therapies with the same FDA Emergency Use Authorization the vaccines have had

By Allen Payton, Publisher

During their meeting Tuesday night, the Antioch City Council will consider approving a “COVID-19 Mandatory Testing and Vaccination Policy” for all city employees, contractors and volunteers. It would require they get one of the COVID-19 vaccines or undergo weekly testing. According to the city staff report for the agenda item, “During the August 24, 2021 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to return to Council with a resolution…with costs borne by the City, time to do so would be limited to a certain duration, and the policy would include a start and end date.” (See agenda Item 13)

It was proposed by Mayor Lamar Thorpe during a press conference in August and supported by him, and all council members except District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica.”

That was in spite of the fact that two of the council members, Districts 1 and 3 Councilwomen Tamisha Torres-Walker and Lori Ogorchock spoke against a mandate, during that meeting, before voting to support it.

Don’t Know Costs, Yet

Also, according to the staff report the city doesn’t even know, yet what the cost of such a mandate will be. It reads, “Costs related to this policy are unknown at this time. Costs may include, but may not be limited to, the cost of weekly testing, the cost of a third part to administer the test, mileage, loss in productivity.”

Wait for Lawsuits Over Other Mandates to Be Settled

Multiple lawsuits are expected to be filed against President Biden’s national mandate he just issued in an executive order, last week. According to the New York Post, “Larry Cosme, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, issued a statement Thursday calling the mandate unnecessary, overbearing and counterintuitive.

‘This executive order villainizes employees for reasonable concerns and hesitancies and interest the federal government into individual medical decisions,’ Cosme said. ‘People should not be made to feel uncomfortable for making a reasonable medical choice.’”

There has also been a lawsuit filed “by a slew of unions” against Mayor DeBlasio for his mandate in that city.

Antioch council members should hold off for the results of those lawsuits before opening up our city to legal challenges and costs.

Violates Health Privacy – Were City Employee Groups Consulted?

Questions were sent to city staff, early Monday afternoon asking, “Have city staff met with the various employee groups to meet and confer on the proposed ordinance for mandating COVID-19 vaccines or weekly testing? If so, what were the results of those meet and confer meetings? Do their contracts need to be amended? If so, did all the groups agree to that?”

They were also asked, “isn’t this a violation of privacy of city employees, contractors, and volunteers, specifically with regards to their health and medical care, since they have to reveal to other city staff members if they’ve had a specific medical treatment or not?”

APOA Requests for Meet and Confer Ignored

Corporal Steve Aiello, Vice President of the Antioch Police Officers Association said there’s been no meet and confer, yet for his organization.

“On two occasions the APOA has reached out to the city, to (Administrative Services Director) Nickie Mastay in personnel and requested a meet and confer,” he stated. “But there’s been no response.”

“It’s a work condition change,” Aiello added as the reason a meet and confer is required.

Additional questions were then sent to City Manager Ron Bernal, after Monday work hours with, “Ron, I just spoke with Steve Aiello of the APOA. He said they’ve sent two email messages to Nickie Mastay requesting a meet and confer on the vaccine and testing mandate, but she has not responded. Is that correct? If so, why not? He said it’s required since it’s a change to their work conditions. Is that true? If so, shouldn’t the APOA and all the city’s employee groups have a meet and confer on the mandate before the council takes a vote?” As of 6:30 p.m. he has not responded to either the emailed nor texted questions, nor has City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith.

Please check back later for their responses should they provide them.

Painful Weekly Testing Alternative, Punishment for No Vaccine, One Test Ineffective

While the proposed policy includes an alternative for weekly testing for those employees, contractors and volunteers who choose to not take a vaccine, have any of the council members been tested? Do they know how painful it is having those swabs scrape the back of your nose and throat? If not, all four should undergo that, first to see what they’re planning on subjecting our city employees, contractors and volunteers to that weekly pain, before voting to mandate it as one of the two options.

According to a New York Times report, “If you’ve seen the test (there are plenty of Instagram videos), then you know it looks as if someone is poking your brain: A swab is inserted deep in through your nostrils…The test itself is quick — only a few seconds — but most describe the sensation as highly uncomfortable.”

According to a Newsweek report, “’This test being demonstrated is a nasopharyngeal swab or NP swab collection. It uses a small flocked swab on a flexible plastic shaft to collect a sample from the posterior nasopharynx,’ Wesley Long, a microbiologist from Houston Methodist Hospital, told Newsweek. ‘Nasopharynx’ is a term that refers to the back part of your nose where it joins the throat.”

I watched as my son get a COVID test last year, and he winced when they put those long swabs up his nostrils. Then I had a test recently and now I know why he winced. I did, too. Ouch, two times! So, basically, that part of the mayor and council majority’s mandate would effectively serve as punishment for those employees, contractors and volunteers who won’t take the vaccine.

Plus, one of the COVID-19 tests that has been in use since February 2020 has been determined ineffective and discontinued by the CDC – but not until Dec. 31, 2021 for some unknown reason – because it can’t tell the difference between the virus and the flu. Yet, those test kits are still being used. The CDC has requested that a new test be developed. The council should wait on that, as well.

Dangerous Side Effects of Vaccines, Other Medical Conditions, Religious Exemption

I’m not going to get into all the details of the fact that there are good reasons for people who don’t want the vaccines due to all their dangerous side effects, have other medical conditions that prevent them from taking the vaccine or have a fundamental religious conviction for not wanting the jab.

Vaccines Still in Clinical Trials, Mandate Violates Nuremberg Code

Plus, all three of the vaccines are still undergoing clinical trials one until Nov. 1, another until 2023 and the third until 2024! (See Moderna Dose-Confirmation Study to Evaluate the Safety, Reactogenicity, and Immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccine in Adults Aged 18 Years and Older here, Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 BNT162b2 Vaccine Effectiveness Study here, and Janssen-Johnson & Johnson Study of (COVID-19) in Adults here)

So, they’re still experimental and therefore such a mandate clearly violates the Nuremberg Code which was established after World War II in response to the Nazis experimenting on the Jews during the Holocaust and others. It prohibits medical experimentation on humans without their consent.

According to the National Institutes of Health website the first lines read, “The Nuremberg Code 1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”

CDC – “Effective Therapeutics Are Available”

According to the CDC’s website under the subheading, “SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibody Therapies” it reads, “In the United States, there are three anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatments with FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the treatment of COVID-19: bamlanivimab plus etesevima, casirivimab plus imdevimab, and sotrovima.” In addition, the CDC website reads, “effective therapeutics are available.”

The only public mention of monoclonal antibody therapies by the government or major media that I’ve read or heard has been about what Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is doing in his state to offer it to his state’s residents at multiple locations. Yet, the CDC’s website offers treatment recommendations and guidelines for administering the alternative therapies.

According to a report by CBS4 Miami, “Monoclonal antibody treatments can be prescribed by health care providers to individuals 12 years of age and older who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 or who have been exposed to someone with COVID-19 and are at high risk for severe illness and hospitalization.”

Council Should Wait

For these reasons and more, the council should wait to approve the testing and vaccine mandate policy. In the meantime, just follow the current CDC guidelines and if a city employee, contractor or volunteer is experiencing COVID symptoms, the must stay home and self-quarantine for 10 days.

However, if the council insists on moving forward with their mandate, they must include the three effective therapies in their policy, so employees who don’t want the vaccine will have an alternative to painful, weekly testing. Otherwise, they’re acting like they’re medical experts, and worse, Nazis, not following the science, the CDC or FDA, nor abiding by the Nuremberg Code and giving OUR city employees – because they work for and are paid by we the people – all the options available to them.

Proposed Policy

Following is the language for the proposed policy resolution:

RESOLUTION NO. 2021/**

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH ADOPTING A COVID-19 TESTING AND VACCINATION POLICY

WHEREAS, the City has an interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of City personnel, community members with whom City personnel interact, and all residents and visitors of the City;

WHEREAS, many City employees come in close contact with members of our community as part of their daily job duties and this often includes members of our community who are unable to receive the COVID-19 vaccine at this time, such as children under the age of twelve, or those with medical conditions contraindicated for the vaccine;

WHEREAS, all City of Antioch employees are designated to be Disaster Service Workers under California Government Code sections 3100-3109 and are required to return to work during an emergency;

WHEREAS, all City employees shall either be vaccinated for COVID-19 or be subject to weekly COVID-9 testing requirements; and

WHEREAS, this policy is an effective way to ensure that City personnel do not pose harm to the public or other employees.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Antioch as follows:

Section 1. The COVID-19 Testing and Vaccination Policy shall address: vaccinations; weekly testing for City employees and contracted personnel at the City’s expense for a specified duration that commences on October 1, 2021.

Section 2. Policy implementation shall be administratively executed by the City Manager and incorporatee any applicable Federal, State and local policy directives on an ongoing basis.

 

By Allen Payton

In spite of the recent County Coroner’s Inquest Jury finding that the death of Angelo Quinto in December was not the result of a knee-to-neck restraint by Antioch Police Officers, the Antioch City Council will discuss adopting a resolution on banning the use of police officer restraints, Tuesday night. (See related article)

According to the staff report, “It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution directing the City Manager and the City Attorney to work with the Chair of the Police Oversight Standing Committee (of the entire city council) and the Antioch Police Department to develop a policy that protects members of the public involved in law enforcement incidents by identifying and prohibiting the use of Police Officer restraints, holds, tactics and maneuvers that pose a substantial risk of positional asphyxiation, potentially resulting in unconsciousness or death.” The item is #6 on the agenda.

In addition, at the request of Mayor Lamar Thorpe, who held a press conference about the matter, last week, the council will consider requiring all city employees get vaccinated for COVID or be required to be tested each week.

The council begins at 7:00 p.m. following closed session discussions beginning at 4:00 p.m, including a legal matter with the Quinto family and an employee performance evaluation of City Manager Ron Bernal.

Members of the public seeking to observe the meeting may do so at https://www.antiochca.gov/live_stream, on Comcast Channel 24, or AT&T U-Verse Channel 99.

Public Comments

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

1. Fill out an online speaker card by 3:00 p.m. the day of the Council Meeting located at:

2. Provide oral public comments during the meeting by clicking 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.

3. Email comments to cityclerk@ci.antioch.ca.us by 3:00 p.m. the day of the Council Meeting. The comment will be read into the record at the meeting (350 words maximum, up to 3 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor). IMPORTANT: Identify the agenda item in the subject line of your email if the comment is for Announcement of Community Events, Public Comment, or a specific Agenda Item number. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during “Public Comments”.

All emails received by 3:00 p.m. the day of the Council Meeting will be entered into the record

for the meeting.

Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.