First one proposed for this summer at fairgrounds

“I know it will make Antioch a destination place” – Councilwoman Torres-Walker

By Allen Payton

During their meeting Tuesday night, a majority of the Antioch City Council members supported creating an ordinance to allow cannabis events in the city, including at the Contra Costa Event Park (county fairgrounds), in response to an application by CoCo Farms. They have a permit from the state to hold 10 events per year.

“This process came out of a need to answer that we can’t say no or yes to,” Mayor Lamar Thorpe explained. “This came as a result of a request of the state.”

During public comments J.R. Wilson said he was speaking on behalf of the Delta Veterans Group “in support…to allow temporary cannabis events.”

Longtime Antioch resident Tom Menasco also spoke in favor of the proposal.

“I would like to support and encourage you to do whatever it takes,” he said, mentioning benefits to the community, “Specifically taxation.”

“These are going to be money-making events,” Menasco stated. “In addition to that, non-profits will benefit from, when they do produce revenue, we will benefit. If we miss this opportunity Concord or someone else will take advantage of this.”

“It was our application to the state,” said Martin Wesley of CoCo Farms. “We’ve worked with the fairgrounds. It’s additional tax revenue and will bring additional people into Antioch. Security will be top of mind.”

“We have a state license to have 10 of these a year and we thought Antioch should be our first,” he added.

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson asked, “Can this go to the cannabis committee so we can properly vet this?”

Thorpe spoke of a timetable.

“For the future, we have a committee,” District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson pointed out.

“I know I support this. I support process, period,” said District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker. “I know it will make Antioch a destination place. We’re constantly talking about how to get more revenue and get more people to Antioch as a destination.”

“It’s not saying we’re opening the floodgates, and it will be a yes or no,” Barbanica said. “If it is a yes, then.

“What is the timeline,” Ogorchock said.

“I believe the applicant’s event is coming up,” City Attorney Thomas L. Smith said.

“420” people in the audience could be heard saying.

“The week of 420 (April 20th) is out of the cards, to do it right,” Wesley said. “The earliest we could do this is July or August.”

“We just did one in Santa Rosa and they sold 50,000 tickets,” he added.

“There’s time to go back to the Cannabis Committee,” Wilson said. “So, I ask that it go back.”

“City Attorney, there’s no time in the process?” she asked.

“I didn’t say that,” Smith responded. “Whatever the council directs.”

“It’s a discussion item. Did you get direction?” Thorpe asked Smith.

“I believe I have direction,” Smith responded.

“So, we can make the July timeframe,” Thorpe added.

Questions for City Attorney

Questions were sent Wednesday morning to City Attorney Smith asking, if the council is required to approve a cannabis event in the city and/or at the Contra Costa Event Park (fairgrounds). In addition, since Prop. 64 which legalizes recreational marijuana use in California gives councils the authority to deny any and all cannabis businesses in their city, he was asked if that also applies to cannabis events, as they would be commercial activities, with ticket sales and on-site cannabis sales.

According to the Local Government Reference Guide to Prop. 64, under “Land Use: Proposition 64 includes multiple local-control provisions that respect local government police powers to: ban commercial cannabis activity, and regulate businesses through local zoning and land-use requirements, and/or business license requirements within their respective jurisdiction by ordinance. However, no local jurisdiction may ban: the consumption of cannabis within its jurisdiction, the allowance of up to six plants for personal use, or the transportation of cannabis through the jurisdiction.”

Finally, Smith was asked if the state Department of Cannabis Control authorize a temporary cannabis event within the city, such as at a park, even if the council opposed it.

Please check back later for updates to this report.

Torres-Walker stands for Pledge of Allegiance; mayor welcomes Con Johnson as interim city manager, finally refers to him as “retired San Francisco Police Lieutenant”

By Allen Payton

During a public hearing at the beginning of Tuesday night’s meeting, the Antioch City Council reviewed new maps submitted by members of the public, as well as the eight maps previously reviewed, including three drawn by the consultant and five submitted by members of the public. In a surprise to some residents watching, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker stood for the Pledge of Allegiance, for the first time since the council returned to holding in-person meetings.

“Since the last meeting we have had four new submissions,” said Karin Mac Donald, owner and Senior Researcher of Q2 Data and Research. “Two of the public submissions don’t meet the Fair Maps Act” due to “contiguity”. She was referring to Maps 39 and 49 reviewed by the council at a previous meeting.

See all maps on the City’s Redistricting webpage under Draft Maps and Public Map Submissions.

“You have one more mapping meeting on Jan. 25th,” she added. “It would be good to whittle down the number of maps” for consideration.

A fourth new map, #503, was submitted last night. (See related article)

During public comments, resident Harry Thurston, one of only two residents to speak, again advocated for Map B, as he had at a previous meeting.

Resident Sharon Johnson asked, “what is the reason for redistricting when you just did it two years ago? My neighbors and I are wondering.”

“If you’re going to do it…” she continued, then said she also supported Map B “because it keeps current neighborhoods together.”

“This process is required every 10 years. What we did last time was not redistricting but districting due to a lawsuit…based on the Census,” Mayor Lamar Thorpe explained

The current districts are based on the 2010 Census. The new districts will be based on the 2020 Census which includes a population increase of 15,000 residents.

During that process in which the council adopted the current districts in May 2018, Thorpe asked Consultant Mac Donald about the current process. “Will we see drastic changes in where the lines will be?”

She responded by saying, “I think that depends on what you wanted to do. There is no law…that says you must start with the districts drawn in the last process.”

Thorpe then stated, “So, we can start with a completely new…or go with what we have and try to adjust the lines accordingly.” (See related articles here and here)

Council Reviews New Maps Submitted by the Public

“I would like to see the new maps that were submitted,” said District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock.

Jane Hood of Q2 then reviewed the four new submitted maps 91, 95, 99 and 503.

She pointed out that the new map, #503 was incomplete, as it is does not include a small portion on the west side of District 2. “It should be included with District 2,” Hood stated.

Ogorchock asked to see Map 91, again, which Hood put up on the screen.

About Map 95 Hood then said, “You’ll see this changes things, a bit.”

She then presented Map 99 and provided the population deviation percentages and described the boundaries.

“The last submission we have was received last night, which is #503,” Hood said, then reviewed the district boundaries and population percentages.

“This process continues until February so there’s time to submit maps,” Thorpe said.

“Do you want me to include all those maps in the staff report?” asked City Attorney Thomas L. Smith.

“Yes, please,” Thorpe replied. He then asked to review the City’s current districts map and the last two maps that the council considered in 2018.

“This map was created through public engagement and by the elected officials,” he said about a map that the council did not approve, known as Quadrants C. As reported previously, that map used major thoroughfares on the south side of Highway 4 as the dividing lines, such as Putnam Drive, Lone Tree Way and Deer Valley Road, as well as the Delta DeAnza Trail on the west side of the city.

Thorpe then spoke about the current districts map.

“This map wasn’t created by any public officials or by any member of the public,” he said. “This map was created by the consultant. No lines were changed…it was literally the exact map created by the consultant. I point this out because there’s been some implications that lines were moved to accommodate one individual council member. That’s a bold-faced lie.”

“That map passed on a 3-2 vote,” Thorpe continued. “There was some interest particularly by Latino residents up north that they haven’t had representation. This process was fair…of the highest regard. This map is fair.”

However, the consultant drew the map after extensive input from both members of the public and city council during several meetings and special workshops, during the 2018 process. Also, at that time, Thorpe said he supported having two council members represent the north side of the freeway stating, “North Antioch deserves two council people.” But in an Op-Ed by him published the day before, he advocated for one district north of the freeway. Plus, Thorpe was one of the three council members, along with Wilson and then-Councilman Tony Tiscareno to approve the current map with just one council member representing that area of the city.

In addition, during the 2018 process for creating the current map, then-Mayor Sean Wright said, “When you gerrymander you draw crazy lines to make sure you have the people in your district. When drawing the lines, I went down the major thoroughfares. I didn’t look at which family is where. I’m in favor of Quadrants C going forward and Working Draft 1.” (See related article)

 

Barbanica then asked to see Map 58 and for the Q2 staff to “go over the boundaries?”

Hood then described the district boundaries and population deviation percentages from average.

“It’s just an easy map to follow,” Barbanica said.

Thorpe Introduces Interim City Manager Johnson as Retired Police Lieutenant

The mayor then closed the public hearing and began the introductions of new city staff members.

“It is my duty to introduce our new city manager. Con Johnson is here, today. He took the helm, officially by himself, last week,” Thorpe said. “He’s a retired San Francisco Police Lieutenant. Con, we welcome you.”

“I would just like to thank the mayor and entire council members for this opportunity to work for this wonderful city,” Johnson said.

Torres-Walker’s idea may now be allowed in the city; would also allow retail sales at the events by licensed Antioch cannabis businesses

By Allen Payton

A passing comment by Antioch District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker during a recent council meeting to use the proposed Rivertown Center at the former Antioch Lumber Company site in downtown for a pot smoking event, has turned into an actual proposed change to the City’s municipal code to allow them.

During their meeting Tuesday night, Jan. 11, 2022, according to the staff report on agenda item 10, the Antioch City Council will “discuss amending the Antioch Municipal Code to add Section 9-5.3848 regarding temporary cannabis events on public property and provide direction to staff”. It would allow events like the one held in San Francisco every year on April 20th. 420 is another term for marijuana.

It “may generate increased revenue by allowing limited temporary cannabis events linked with retail sales by Antioch licensed cannabis businesses,” the staff report explains.

“One possible location for a temporary cannabis event is the Contra Costa County Fair (the “County Fair”), which is a District Agricultural Association site that holds fairs, expositions, and exhibitions to highlight various industries, enterprises, resources, and products of the state. The City could also approve other locations for an event to be held,” the staff report continues.

“The state Department of Cannabis Control (“Department”) has the discretion to authorize a temporary cannabis event. Only the holder of a temporary cannabis event license issued by the Department may hold a temporary cannabis event, which is subject to additional restrictions as a Type 14 cannabis license holder. Restrictions on a temporary cannabis event include limited duration and hours, Department approval of security, prohibition on sales of tobacco or alcohol at the event, restrictions on storage and marking of cannabis, track-and-trace regulations, and exclusion of minors.

Although the City may not have land use control over the County Fair, the Department of Cannabis Control requires approval by the applicable city or county for an event to be held on that type of public property.”

Attend or View Council Meeting

The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in-person in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street and are televised live on Comcast channel 24, AT&T U-verse channel 99, or live stream at www.antiochca.gov/government/city-council-meetings.

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: https://www.antiochca.gov/speaker_card.
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.

1. 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 or the meeting. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.

 

By Allen Payton

Three maps drawn and submitted by the public for the Antioch City Council’s redistricting process in December, since their last meeting on the 14th, are not included with the public hearing agenda item for Tuesday night’s meeting. Copies of two of the maps and statistics obtained by the Herald were sent Friday afternoon, to all five council members, city staff and staff of Q2 Data and Research, the consultant hired to assist in the process.

In addition, they were asked if they had received the maps, if there were any other maps submitted since the last council meeting on Dec. 14. They were also asked, if there were additional maps submitted, why they aren’t included for tomorrow night’s discussion, why they aren’t on the City’s redistricting webpage, and what is the process for a map created by a member of the public to be included in the council’s public hearings and on posted on the webpage.

It’s not clear when the maps were submitted by the public. Because the map labeled #58, was created and submitted by this reporter in November, but it’s dated Dec. 13 and map #87 is dated Dec. 17 but it w.as one of the five publicly submitted maps included in the discussion during the public hearing on Dec 14. (See Draft Maps)

This is the second time maps submitted by the public – long before the council agenda was issued – were not included in the meeting agenda packet. The five maps submitted by the public before the Dec. 14 meeting weren’t included for the public hearing that night. However, by that afternoon, Q2 staff had included the publicly submitted maps on the City’s redistricting webpage and Mayor Lamar Thorpe included them in the discussion during the public hearing, that night. (See related articles here and here)

Attempts on Monday to reach Jane Hood of Q2 asking her the same questions sent on Friday, were unsuccessful prior to publication time. 4:40 P.M. UPDATE: “All maps are posted on the website – the new ones are 91, 95 and 99,” Hood shared. However, they’re located under Public Map Submissions.

User Comments on Three New Publicly Submitted Maps

For Map 91 the online mapping tool’s user didn’t offer any comments. It is just slightly different than map 87. For Map 95, the one on the left at the top of this article, the User Comments are: “It results in three council members representing the waterfront instead of just one. It also serves to more unify the city between older parts and newer parts instead of dividing it like the current districts do with just one district north of Highway 4. It also combines the Mira Vista Hills area south of James Donlon Blvd. with the older areas north of James Donlon Blvd. and the newer area west of Somersville Road which is more of a Community of Interest.” For Map 99, the User Comments are: “This map gives each council member a portion of both sides of Highway 4
and a share of the waterfront using major city streets as boundary lines.”

Ogorchock Responds to Questions

District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock was the only council member to respond to the Herald’s questions. She wrote, “I’ve not seen these maps until now. I’m not sure as to why there not part of the presentation. Good question. I can tell you I’m not for either one of them. Thank you for sharing.”

Attend or View Council Meeting

The redistricting public hearing is item 1 on Tuesday night’s council meeting agenda, which begins at 7:05 p.m.

The meeting will be held in-person in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street and are televised live on Comcast channel 24, AT&T U-verse channel 99, or live stream at www.antiochca.gov/government/city-council-meetings.

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:  https://www.antiochca.gov/speaker_card.
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.

1. 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 or the meeting. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.

Started Monday Dec. 13 mayor says; council members informed by email same day, not told what criteria was used nor provided with details to make the decision themselves about Cornelius “Con” Johnson

“It should not be up to the staff to make a determination of whether someone passed or failed…All of this should be…shared with the city council…then be up to the city council to determine whether the results meet their standards for selecting a city manager.” – Martha Perego, Director of Member Services and Ethics, International City/County Management Association

By Allen Payton

In a breach of protocol and mishandling of proper procedure, City of Antioch staff, including at least Administrative Services Director Nickie Mastay, unilaterally determined new Interim City Manager Cornelius “Con” Johnson successfully passed the background check she conducted. In her position, which is essentially in charge of human resources, Mastay is one of the department heads who answers directly to the city manager. Johnson has been granted full authority as city manager to hire and fire any and all department heads, which includes Mastay, the chief of police, and others. (See related article)

According to Martha Perego, Director of Member Services and Ethics for the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), it’s the city council’s responsibility to determine if a candidate for city manager passed or failed the background check, not city staff.

Without fanfare or major public announcement, Johnson started in his position as interim city manager on Monday, Dec. 13. The public was not made aware of that fact until the end of the council meeting on Tuesday night, Dec. 14, when Mayor Lamar Thorpe made a rather casual but surprising comment welcoming Johnson, who the mayor said had started in his new position the day before. That answered the question for some members of the public in attendance for the council meeting why Johnson was included in the photos for outgoing City Manager Ron Bernal.

Mayor, Two Council Members, Staff Refuse to Answer Questions

On Wednesday, Dec. 15, questions were sent to Mastay, City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, and all five council members asking about Johnson starting that Monday. They were asked, “how is that possible if the background check being conducted by Nickie Mastay isn’t yet completed? If it is, when was it completed? If Con passed it, who determined that? Did the council members receive a copy of a report on his background check?”

The staff and council members were also asked, “isn’t it the council’s responsibility to review the findings from the background check and then make the determination if he successfully passed it and vote on it during closed session which would then be reported out to the public how each council member voted? If it was Nickie who determined that, how could she? Who gave or what gives her the authority to do so?  Doesn’t she have a clear conflict of interest since Con will be her new boss and can fire and replace her with his full authority as city manager granted to him by the city council? Wouldn’t she pass him knowing there are three votes on the council to hire him? Or was it Thomas who determined Con successfully passed the background check? If so, how can an equal colleague, both of whom are hired by the council, be the one to make such a subjective determination?”

Since neither Smith nor Mastay responded to previous questions to them of what would cause someone to fail a background check, additional questions were posed to them and the council members. They were asked, “what are the determining factors that were considered, specifically for an interim city manager candidate? Is lying on his resume and inflating credentials grounds for failing the background check? Shouldn’t that be the criteria, when conducting background checks of anyone who wants to work for the City of Antioch?”

Is financial experience a determining factor? While I didn’t write about it (previously), based on the information I’ve received from an Antioch resident who conducted his own background check on Con, it shows he has two bankruptcies and three real estate foreclosures in his past. Were you aware of that? If so, were those facts considered for someone being hired for the top position of running an operation with a $259 million annual budget?”

Ogorchock, Barbanica Respond But Can’t Answer Most Questions

According to District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock, council members received an email on Monday morning, Dec. 8 informing them that Johnson had passed the background check.

“I received an email on Monday morning stating that he had passed his background and they would be doing his on-boarding,” she said.” That’s all I got. That was it.”

Asked if she had asked city staff about the process and why the council members weren’t the ones to determine if Johnson had passed, Ogorchock said, “I called Nickie (Mastay) and I’m waiting for a response back. I didn’t get a response, yesterday, the day before or today.”

“I’m trying to get answers to questions people are asking me,” she continued. “I also don’t know why there hasn’t been a press release on it, either.”

District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica reiterated what his colleague said. In response to the Herald’s questions, he wrote, “We received an email Monday morning 8:29 AM (the entire council) stating that he had passed his background and was onboarding.  I did not see any documents of the background.”

Asked about the background check, he said, “we were told human resources was doing it. I spoke to Ron about it after the council meeting in which the council voted 3-2 to hire Johnson, and he said the background check would be conducted and reviewed by human resources.”

Asked, again who determined Johnson had passed the background check, Barbanica said, “I don’t know if the mayor reviewed it. I didn’t review it.”

On Monday, Jan. 10, asked if she had heard back from Mastay, Ogorchock said, “She said she was going to reach out to you. I believe she hired an outside firm to do the background check. I don’t know.”

Questions on Process for Hiring Interim or Permanent City Manager to Johnson, Assistant City Manager Go Unanswered

Unless the council hires Johnson, Assistant City Manager Rosanna Bayon-Moore, or someone else on city staff, to be the permanent city manager, they will have to go through the same process, again later this year. In an attempt to determine what process was followed, this time and what is the proper process for dealing with the background check of a city manager candidate, the following, additional questions were sent to the same individuals, as well as Johnson and Bayon-Moore early Thursday afternoon, Dec. 16: “Was the council provided with a copy of Mr. Johnson’s complete background check? When and how were they informed that he had successfully passed it? Who determined that he passed it? If it wasn’t the council members, why wasn’t it? What were the criteria upon which that determination was made for the hiring of Mr. Johnson and/or for any city manager or city attorney candidate?”

Another attempt to reach Mastay by phone made on Monday morning, Jan. 10 was unsuccessful.

Questions for International City/County Management Association

An effort to reach someone at ICMA to answer questions regarding the proper procedure for hiring and conducting the background check of an interim or permanent city manager candidate, was unsuccessful between Dec. 15 and 31.

Those questions were sent via email on Friday, Jan. 7 to Ethics Director Perego. She was also asked who should determine if the candidate has successfully passed the background check and if it is a conflict of interest for a department head who answers directly to the city manager to make that determination. Perego was also asked shouldn’t it be the city council’s decision to make that determination based on the background information gathered by a city’s human resources department and provided to the council members. Finally, she was asked what is the criteria that a city council should use on which to base the determination if the candidate for city manager has passed or failed the background check.

Council, City Staff Mishandle Hiring Process, Background Check

In response, Perego of the ICMA, responded Monday morning, Jan. 10 with the following:

“One of the benefits of using an outside firm to assist in the recruitment of a city manager is that they handle vetting of the candidates. You avoid the potentially awkward situation where a staff member who ultimately will report to the city manager may have weighed in on the candidates, even if it is just providing basic information.  Or learns something in the course of the process that is potentially embarrassing or questionable about their future boss. Hopefully, they would be professional about the matter. But that is why independence and objectivity that an outside firm brings, even from the appearance perspective, can be very beneficial.

Where the city relies on the HR team to manage the recruitment, they will be involved in the background check. They should be clear with the city council in advance about what data points they are checking and then report the factual results of that review to the city council. It should not be up to the staff to make a determination of whether someone passed or failed.  There should be an initial background check of applications who have been determined to meet the qualifications to determine who will move on to the next round, i.e. confirm educational credentials, residency, online reputation, related issues, etc. That should be followed up with a more in-depth background check that includes criminal records, lawsuits, bankruptcy, etc.  When the outside firms are involved, they typically will ask early on whether there is anything in the candidate’s background that the potential employer should know about. They use that info when conducting the background check to confirm whether the candidate was forthcoming and truthful.

All of this should be done confidentially and shared with the city council in a confidential manner (as long as that is permitted by law). It should then be up to the city council to determine whether the results meet their standards for selecting a city manager. They may also want to talk with the candidate about the results to acquire some context. For example, perhaps the candidate defaulted on a home mortgage a decade ago. Depending on the circumstances, that in and of itself may not be a disqualifying event.  But a recent DUI or arrest for assault, especially if it was not disclosed upfront during the initial discussions, is different and may be an automatic disqualifier.”

Perego’s Response and Questions Again Sent to Council, Staff

Perego’s response and questions about the process were again sent to Mastay, Attorney Smith, Johnson, the mayor and council members, Monday morning at 10:02 AM. They were asked: “Who conducted Mr. Johnson’s background check? Was it Nickie Mastay or did she hire an outside firm? If so, what is the name of the firm who conducted it? How much did the City pay them? Did the council provide the data points to staff of what they wanted in the background check? What were the determining factors upon which Mr. Johnson could pass or fail? Were the results of the background check presented to any or all council members? Who made the determination that Mr. Johnson passed his background check and upon what basis? Was it the mayor, council, Nickie Mastay or someone else on city staff?

In addition, Smith was specifically asked “Is that permitted by law for the council to do in California?” regarding the section in which Perego wrote, “All of this should be done confidentially and shared with the city council in a confidential manner (as long as that is permitted by law).”

They were each given until 12:30 p.m., Monday, Jan. 10 to respond.

No responses had been received from any staff member, the mayor or other council members, as of publication time at 1:00 p.m.

Bernal Welcomes Johnson, Misrepresents Title, Position With SFPD

Other than the mayor’s brief announcement, the only other mention of Johnson becoming interim city manager was in retiring city manager Ron Bernal’s final Bi-Weekly Update issued on Dec. 28, in which he also misrepresented Johnson’s last title and position with the San Francisco Police Department. As has been previously reported, although Johnson served in his final two years as an acting captain and retired and his pension is being paid as a Lieutenant III, his resume only shows the title of captain, and has been introduced to the public as a retired captain since late 2020. Johnson still has not explained the discrepancy. (See related articles here and here)

Bernal wrote, “WELCOME CON! I am very pleased to introduce our new Interim City Manager, Cornelius Johnson. Mr. Johnson comes to us with 17 years of managerial experience with the City and County of San Francisco, most recently as a captain in the San Francisco Police Department’s Field Operations Bureau. Throughout his career, Con has devoted his career to establishing strong bonds between his agencies and the residents he has served. Please join me in welcoming Con to our Antioch family.”

As of Monday, Jan. 10 the Administration Department page on the City’s website still shows Bernal is city manager.

Johnson’s first council meeting as interim city manager is tomorrow night, Tuesday, Jan. 11.

Appoints Barbanica the next mayor pro tem; honors outgoing city manager Ron Bernal; spends $60,000 on Chinatown history exhibit at Antioch Historical Society Museum; approves $145,000 for Antioch’s Sesquicentennial Celebration; approves minutes for past five meetings

Torres-Walker again doesn’t stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, keeps her back to the American flag; Thorpe says Con Johnson started as interim city manager on Monday without any announcement he’s passed the background check

By Allen Payton

In response to the urging by members of the public and city council for more time for additional public comment and input, the Antioch City Council voted 3-0-1 to extend their redistricting process by one month until the end of February. During the very full agenda, for their final meeting of the year, the council also approved another cannabis business on W. 10th Street, spending about $285,000 to place 15 Antioch homeless residents in the soon to reopen Delta Landing site in Pittsburg, and $60,000 for a Chinatown exhibit inside the Antioch Historical Society Museum on W. 4th Street. In addition, the council voted to grant $145,000 to the Celebrate Antioch Foundation for next year’s Sesquicentennial celebration of Antioch’s 150th anniversary of cityhood.

In addition, the council honored outgoing City Manager Ron Bernal with a presentation for his five years in the position and 26 years total with the City of Antioch.

At the beginning of the meeting, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker again remained seated, with her back to the American flag during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approve Minutes for Past Five Meetings

During the consent calendar, the council then approved the minutes from their regular and special meetings of Oct. 26, Nov. 2, Nov. 9, Nov. 16 and Nov. 23. At the meeting on Nov. 23 the council voted to postpone the approval of the minutes from the first four aforementioned meetings because they had not yet been prepared by the city clerk’s office. Minutes of the previous meeting are supposed to be prepared and included in the next meeting’s agenda. As of Wednesday evening, Dec. 15 the minutes for meetings since June 22 through Oct. 16 were finally on the council’s Agendas and Minutes page on the City’s website and the agenda for last night’s meeting is now on that page, although it wasn’t there as of yesterday, before the meeting began. The public was directed to the City’s calendar page to find them. (See related editorial)

Redistricting Presentation of 8 Alternative Maps, Process Extended

In response to a question by District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica about the redistricting deadline, Jane Hood of consultant Q2 Data and Research, who provided the presentation during the third of four scheduled public hearings, Tuesday night, the council has until April 17 to choose a final map of new district boundaries. The schedule was to conclude with a final vote on January 25 but both Barbanica and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock agreed with those who spoke during public comments that residents and the council needed more time. Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson was absent for the presentation and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker who made no comments during the discussion voted to abstain on the motion to extend the process, without explanation.

All eight maps were presented to the council, including the three created by Q2 staff and the five submitted by the public. (See related article)

Two members of the public urged the council to approve Map B. Ogorchock, who expressed her displeasure with that option, asked Hood to make some changes to Map C between Districts 3 and 4 on the east end of Antioch north of Lone Tree Way. But the modifications resulted in District 3 having too high of a population percentage deviation greater than 5% from average, which is the legal limit, and District 4 with too small of a population, also greater than the 5% deviation from average. So, Ogorchock abandoned the effort.

Thorpe said all eight maps would be brought back for consideration at the next public hearing on redistricting on January 11.

Unanimously Approve Cannabis Cultivation Facility

The council, on a 5-0 vote, approved the application by KWMA Collective, LLC to operate a cannabis cultivation facility at 2101 W. 10th Street in the same building that houses both the Delta Dispensary and the recently approved Delta Labs. (See related article)  KWMA Collective cannabis biz ACC121421

Approve Funds for Transitional Housing for 15 Antioch Unhoused Residents

The council on a 5-0 vote also approved spending $284,700 to place 15 unhoused Antioch residents at the new Delta Landing Interim Housing site in Pittsburg, which is estimated to re-open its doors within 30 days. The action was in response to the recommendation by the Council’s Ad Hoc Committee on Unhoused Residents made up of Mayor Lamar Thorpe and Councilman Barbanica, earlier this month. (See related article)

According to the City staff report the funds will be spent “for a duration of 12 months; to be drawn from the current General Fund budget balance of previously earmarked funds to address unhoused resident needs.”

In addition, the staff report explains, “As part of ongoing dialogue between the City and County, a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) has been developed that provides access to City initiated, CORE (the county’s Coordinated Outreach Referral, Engagement program) approved referrals for a maximum of 15 bed nights at any one time over a period of one year. The cost to the City is $52/night when City referrals are placed and beds are utilized. Wrap around support services include benefit assistance, medical services, behavioral health services, as well as case management, housing navigation and rapid rehousing assistance.”

“The timing for securing potential space through a formal agreement is immediate should the City wish to exercise bed options upon facility re-opening,” the staff report continues. “It is a rare and unique window to have access to a total of 15 new City referred, CORE approved placements at one time.”

Barbanica moved approval of the expenditure and MOU and it was approved on a 5-0 vote.

Approves $145,000 for Antioch’s Sesquicentennial Celebration

During the consent calendar, the council approved spending $145,000 for the Celebrate Antioch Foundation to put on events for next year’s Sesquicentennial celebration of Antioch’s 150th anniversary of cityhood. According to the City staff report, the Celebrate Antioch Foundation is also committing to raising $56,500 to be used toward Sesquicentennial Events. A variety of events and activities are planned throughout the community, beginning on Feb. 6 the day the City was incorporated in 1872.  Sesquicentennial CAF Budget ACC121421

Council Spends $60,000 on Chinatown Historical Exhibit

Earlier in the meeting, the council, on a 5-0 vote, agreed to spend $60,000 on a contract with the same San Francisco-based firm that developed the new City logo, ad campaign “Opportunity Lives Here” and the Rivertown Dining District logo, to create a new Chinatown exhibit inside the Antioch Historical Society Museum. Antioch’s Chinatown was burned down in 1876. In June, during the signing ceremony by the council of a resolution apologizing for that tragedy and the racism against Chinese immigrants in the late 1800’s, the Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association (APAPA) Foundation agreed to donate $10,000 for the exhibit. (See related article)

Appoints Barbanica City’s New Mayor Pro Tem

During the 15th and final agenda item of the council meeting, City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith said, “According to the ordinance in our municipal code passed by city council, we have a rotation of the guard. It’s more of a formality because it’s already outlined in the municipal code.” (See related article)

Without discussion or public comment Ogorchock made the motion “to appoint Mike Barbanica as our next mayor pro tem”. Torre-Walker seconded the motion. It passed on a 5-0 vote.

“Are you ready for this? You may have to call a press conference from time to time, visit a crime scene,” Mayor Lamar Thorpe joked.

Barbanica replaces Wilson in the position who held it this year, having gained the highest percentage of votes of all four council members in last November’s election. The councilman garnered the second highest percentage of votes.

Bernal Offers Farewell

City Manager Ron Bernal will retire at the end of the month, briefly said at the end of his final meeting in the position, “I wanted to thank the council…for the past five years. It’s been a privilege and an honor.”

Thorpe Announces Interim City Manager Started Monday

“Welcome to our interim city manager who started on Monday, Mr. Con Johnson,” Thorpe added, then wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

No announcement had yet been offered by either the mayor or city staff that Johnson had successfully passed his background check. Questions were emailed Wednesday morning to the mayor, council members, and city staff asking about that. No response was received as of late Wednesday night.

The next regular Antioch City Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2022.

But five proposed maps created and submitted by residents using online mapping tool on City’s website will be included in discussion – see three of them, here; Antioch rushing to be done by end of January; Brentwood using more transparent process with independent citizens commission, showing all maps created on their redistricting website, won’t be finished until April 17

By Allen Payton

At the beginning of Tuesday night’s regular Antioch City Council meeting, at 7:05 p.m., a public hearing will be held on the redistricting of council districts. But only the maps created by the consultant, Q2 Data and Research which were considered at the council’s last hearing on redistricting were included with the agenda packets. Only two maps created and submitted by members of the public using the City’s online mapping tool were received by Q2 as of yesterday, three more Tuesday morning, two of which had been submitted on Nov. 15 and 16, by resident Lindsey Amezcua. She provided them to the Herald and are published, above and below. Antioch Council Redistricting Hearing presentation 121421

Jan Hood of Q2 said “two maps from the public had been received as of yesterday (one of which was from the Herald) and three more, this morning. They will all be presented to council and be part of the public hearing, tonight.”

4:15 PM UPDATE: Late Tuesday afternoon, Hood shared, “that all publicly submitted maps (that Q2 has received) have been posted on the redistricting website under the ‘Public Map Submissions’ section.”

Antioch Redistricting Public Map #11162021449 (antiochca.gov)

Antioch Redistricting Public Map #11212021458 (antiochca.gov) – The Antioch Herald map. One correction to the label on the map placed by Q2. Districts 2 and 4 are not divided by Contra Loma Blvd. but the boundary of the Contra Loma Regional Park.

Antioch Redistricting Public Map #11282021434 (antiochca.gov)

Antioch Redistricting Public Map #1152021439 (antiochca.gov)

Antioch Redistricting Public Map #12142021487 (antiochca.gov) One correction to the label on the map placed by Q2. Districts 2 and 4 are not divided by Contra Loma Blvd. but the boundary of the Contra Loma Regional Park.

———————-

Following are the individual district maps and details submitted by the Antioch Herald:

AH AntiochCityCouncil_District 1    AH AntiochCityCouncil_District 2   AH AntiochCityCouncil_District 3

AH AntiochCityCouncil_District 4   Antioch Herald – 2021 Council Redistricting Map & Details

The Herald’s map was drawn based on principles of compactness, keeping Communities of Interest together, and using common-sense boundaries such as major roadways, in order for the public to easily understand in which district they reside. It also moves the Mira Vista Hills/Silverado Drive area into District 2 instead of District 4, and makes Districts 2, 3 and 4 north-south oriented districts instead of east-west, with each one bounded on the north by Highway 4. There are no changes to District 1’s current boundaries. Although incumbency is not a required consideration for the process, the Herald’s map leaves all current council members in their current districts.

Difficulties Using Online Mapping Tool

All five council members, City Attorney Thomas L. Smith and Q2 staff were informed by this reporter that it took four tries using the City’s online mapping tool, three after logging in and on the third try, I was able to submit. But what was sent shows it was a blank map. On the fourth try, without logging in, I created the above map which I did submit, and is labeled Antioch Herald map. A minor challenge is the district colors are too similar and the user doesn’t get to choose them. Thus Districts 1 and 4 look like the same color and Districts 2 and 3 are very similar, as well.

Amezcua said she, too had difficulty using the online mapping tool.

Unlike the district maps approved for last year’s elections, which were only in place for two years, the district maps approved this time will be in place for 10 years.

Brentwood Using Independent Citizens Commission, More Transparent Process

The City of Brentwood’s redistricting process includes an independent citizens redistricting commission made up of five members of the public and alternates appointed from those who applied by a retired judge, to review submissions and then send two or more designs to the council for a decision on a final map which the council members can’t modify. All submitted and draft maps designed by the public are on their city’s redistricting webpage for the public to review. Their process began in September and won’t be completed until April 17. (See Brentwood’s  Online Mapping Tool)

Questions for Council, City and Q2 Staff

Questions were sent Monday night to all five council members, City Attorney Smith and Q2 staff, asking, “Why aren’t any maps drawn and submitted by members of the public, including mine, included for Tuesday night’s public hearing on redistricting? Why are only the three maps drawn by Q2 included that were presented at the last meeting?”

It was shared that this reporter was told by Q2 staff in a Zoom meeting held with them, that they redrew the maps for each district created and submitted for the process by the Herald   Why didn’t that occur? How many maps were submitted by members of the public? What’s the point of having an online mapping tool for the public to use if you’re just going to disregard what they have submitted?”

None of them are available on the City’s redistricting page.

They were also asked, “did the mapping tool get fixed so it produces one complete map of all four districts and not just the four individual maps, using the same color for each?”

The Antioch council members and staff were also asked, “Why can’t Antioch use that same process?  What is the rush to get this done by the last meeting in January when the Brentwood City Council won’t be completed with their process until April 17?”

None of the council members nor city staff responded prior to publication time on 1:00 p.m. Tuesday.

Q2 Responds

In response, Hood of Q2 also said, “As of now, the mapping tool does not provide a final citywide map. It shows the four final maps, individually. I will follow up regarding your suggestions and discuss them with our team”.

Asked for copies of the other two maps created by members of the public to include them with this report, Hood said she was waiting to hear back from city staff for permission.

Hood asked if members of the public have created and submitted a redistricting map using the City of Antioch’s online mapping tool but it is not part of tonight’s council public hearing, to please email Q2 at support@publicredistricting.com.

Attend or View Council Meeting

The meeting will be held in-person in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street and are televised live on Comcast channel 24, AT&T U-verse channel 99, or live stream at www.antiochca.gov/government/city-council-meetings.

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: https://www.antiochca.gov/speaker_card.
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 or the meeting. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

 

 

Claim they’re privileged and “exempt from disclosure at this time”; DA says they’re evidence

Torres-Walker surprised by misdemeanor charge for interfering with police, denies bullet casings found on her property

“There were multiple shell casings that were located in the street directly in front of Councilwoman Torres-Walker’s residence.” APD Captain Schnitzius

By Allen Payton

In response to a Public Records Act (PRA) request for copies of the police officer body and vehicle dash cam videos of the October 2, 2021 incident at Antioch District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker’s home, Interim Antioch Police Chief Tony Morefield said his department won’t release them because at this time as they are privileged. In addition, Captain Trevor Schnitzius said the Contra Costa DA’s office says the reason is they are evidence. (See related article)

The request was made on Oct. 4, 2021 in an email to the then-acting chief and City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith. It was sent, again on Oct. 6 and included City Manager Ron Bernal asking, “When will a press release be issued about this very serious incident? Also, how soon can the police body and dash cam videos be released? I know it’s new technology for our city, but how quickly can that happen?”

In response to that email that same day, Bernal wrote, “Thanks for the info Tony. I have a call into Rolando to discuss this and a couple of other things. I expect to have something to discuss by our 4:00 pm meeting today,” referring to the City’s public information officer, Rolando Bonilla.

But no press release was issued by the City, at that time, nor since.

Then on Oct. 10, APD Police Records Supervisor Lynn Dansie said the incident was still under investigation and the videos would not be released but, provided some details of what occurred, as previously reported. (See related article)

“The Antioch Police Department is in receipt of your recent Public Records Act request for body camera footage and dash camera footage of a recent incident that resulted in case #21-8418, involving a local Councilwoman. Because this is an active investigation and still considered to be an open case, the records that may be responsive to your request are being denied for release under GC 6254(f), GC 6254(k) and GC 6255(a), at this time,” she wrote.”

“A press release is not planned to be released,” Dansie continued. “As described in GC 6254(f)(2), the following details regarding the call, are available. Officers responded to the 500 block of Gary Ave on October 3, 2021 at 0027 hrs, for a report of a loud party and shots heard, in the area.  There were no victims, no injuries, and no property loss determined at the time of officers [sic] arrival.  As mentioned, this is an open and continuing investigation at this time.”

In a follow up email sent Monday, Nov. 8, asking when the body and dash cam videos will be available, if the investigation has been completed and if not, when expected it to be.

DA Charges Torres-Walker for Interfering with Police

Finally, on Tuesday, Nov. 9, another email was sent to Morefield asking, again for the videos. Referring to an East County Today news report about Torres-Walker being charged by the Contra Costa DA with a misdemeanor for her actions during the incident, the interim chief was asked, “Now that it’s out, will you please send out a press release about it to the rest of the media and release the dash and body cam footage to all of us?”

Denial Letter Received Nov. 9

In a letter to the Herald received Nov. 9, Morefield wrote, “The City…has concluded that” the videos “are statutorily exempt from disclosure at this time.” His letter then cited several state government codes supporting the decision.

Torres-Walker Surprised by Charge, Denies Bullet Casings on Her Property

On Nov. 10 KTVU FOX2 reported Councilwoman Torres-Walker said she was surprised to be charged by the District Attorney’s office and denied there were any bullet shell casings on her property.

Additional Questions for Antioch Police

Questions were then sent to Morefield about his decision asking, “why are the dash and body cam videos of the incident at Councilwoman Torres-Walker’s home privileged? I don’t understand and most likely neither will the public. Won’t you be able to say that about all of the dash and body cam videos the department acquires of all incidents? If not, what makes this one special? Because it involves a councilwoman? Or because she was only charged with a misdemeanor?

In addition, he was asked, “when will a press release about what occurred that night and the charges against her be sent? Don’t you agree the public has a right to know what their elected officials do that is illegal, especially when it involves gunshots at their house?”

Regarding the videos being statutorily exempt from disclosure at this time, Morefield was asked why and if it’s because the prosecution of Councilwoman Torres-Walker is underway. He was also asked if it also means the videos will eventually be released, possibly once the prosecution is completed.

APD Responds: Bullet Casings Located Street in Front of Torres-Walker’s Home; DA: Video is Evidence

In an email response on Nov. 22, Captain Trevor Schnitzius wrote, “With respect to Councilwoman Torres-Walker, we understand PRA and the balancing test of public interest vs. right to privacy as well as other provisions within PRA.  In this instance, we have reached out to Simon O’Connell from the CCC DA’s office regarding yours and others request.  It has been our position, and also the position of the CCC District Attorney’s Office that this particular video is and continues to be evidence.  Upon our inquiry with the DA’s office, they also advised our agency the release of this video prior to a trial could be detrimental to the prosecution of the pending criminal case.  Regarding your inquiry as to whether or not Councilwoman Torres-Walker was arrested/cited, any information with regards to this cannot be released.  After a period of 30 days any arrest information becomes local criminal history and is not subject to release pursuant to PC 1330.  This advisement is not to be construed as to indicate an arrest was made/not made in this particular case.”

In addition, Schnitzius wrote, “The one bit of information I can provide (public interest outweighs privacy) is in reference to your inquiry regarding shell casings.  There were multiple shell casings that were located in the street directly in front of Councilwoman Torres-Walker’s residence.”