Occurred on 680 in Concord; apologizes in video, claims to have only had one drink; won’t answer questions; Ogorchock says Thorpe not “being a good example to our youth”

By Allen D. Payton

Embattled Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe, who is facing a possible recall, was arrested for driving under the influence at 1:27 AM this morning, Saturday, March 19, according to the Arrest Report / Unusual Incident – Press Release issued by CHP Public Information Officer Andrew Barclay. “It happened on 680 in Concord,” Barclay said. (See Arrest Report: Chp288B.THORPE)

The report reads, “On 3/19/22 at 1:15 am, CHP Contra Costa conducted an enforcement stop on a gray Volvo traveling on northbound I-680 near Monument Blvd.  The driver and only occupant of the Volvo was identified as Lamar Thorpe (4/6/1981).  The officers conducted a DUI investigation and Thorpe was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.  Thorpe was cited for violations 23152(a) VC and 23152(b) VC and released from custody at 3:35am.”

“As officers were investigating this incident there was an injury collision being investigated in the same area. These two incidents are completely unrelated.”

Barbanica First to Confirm Incident With CHP

Earlier Saturday, in response to reports of Thorpe’s arrest and rumors that he had an underage female passenger with him and that he was in the Martinez Detention Facility, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica contacted the CHP for verification and to determine if he had to step into the role of acting mayor.

“I just spoke with ranking CHP personnel who confirmed that an arrest was made of Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe for DUI who was cite released,” Barbanica informed the Herald. “There was no crash. There was no 17-year-old passenger. It was a standard enforcement stop. CHP will be issuing a press release later.”

Asked when it occurred and where, and what the Blood Alcohol Content was, Barbanica said he did not have that information. Asked for information on any other passenger Barbanica said, “I have no knowledge of any other passengers. But I was told specifically by a CHP administrator that the rumor of a 17-year-old passenger being in the car was incorrect.”

Barbanica later shared, “According to a CHP spokesman, Thorpe was arrested for 23152 (a) Misdemeanor DUI Under the Influence and 23152 (b) Blood Alcohol Content over a .08 and pursuant to their policy was cite released.”

Thorpe Not Booked, But Cited and Released to a “Responsible Party”, Car Towed

Asked if he was allowed to drive home, Barbanica, a retired Pittsburg Police Watch Commander/Lieutenant, said, “CHP usually releases them into someone’s custody.”

Asked if Thorpe was allowed to drive himself home, since he was released two hours after his arrest, CHP’s Barclay said, “We would never allow an impaired individual to drive themself home. They are released to a responsible party to drive the individual home.”

Asked if Thorpe was still with the CHP Officer on the side of the road at the time of his release or from where he was released, where he was booked, if Thorpe was taken to county jail, and if his car was impounded and towed from the scene, Barclay responded, “There was no booking. People we cite and release are not booked into county jail. He was transported to our office in Martinez for the chemical test and was released from there. The vehicle was towed from the scene. To be clear, that is not an impound, but a storage.”

Barbanica then stated that “it was common practice for the CHP to take a DUI suspect to their office or a nearby agency to administer a chemical test, either breath or blood. It was common practice when I was working as a Watch Commander.”

Asked which test, Barclay added Thorpe was administered a breath test.

Thorpe Apologizes in Facebook Video, Claims He Had Only One Drink

At about noon, today, Thorpe posted a video on his official mayor’s Facebook page about the arrest. While apparently reading from notes off-camera he said, “Good morning, Antioch. I wanted to come before you, today because I wanted to share some personal news with you. Last night, after having dinner with a friend, I was pulled over by the California Highway Patrol and cited for driving under the influence. For that I take full responsibility. Upon advice of counsel, I am limited in what I can share with you, but I felt it was important to be open and direct with you. Although I never felt inhibited by the drink I had with my dinner, I’m deeply sorry for the lapse in judgement, and I hope that you can forgive me. Being your mayor is one of the greatest honors of life and I am sorry if I have embarrassed you in any way. You have my full commitment that I will grow and learn from this moment and continue to work diligently on behalf of the residents of Antioch. Thank you for listening. Have a wonderful day.”

Most Questions for Thorpe Go Unanswered

The following questions were emailed to Thorpe at 10:32 AM Saturday, prior to the release of the arrest report, Barbanica’s information or the video: “Was it for alcohol or drugs? If it was for drinking what was your blood alcohol level? If for drugs, was it a prescription medication? If not, what was the drug or drugs you consumed? When and where did your arrest occur?

Did you remember telling the CHP Officer who arrested you that you’re the mayor of Antioch?

From and to where were you traveling at that time? Before getting in your car was anyone else with you who saw you inebriated and try to take your keys and prevent you from driving? Did anyone attempt to get you to use Uber or Lyft, instead?

Did you return home or go somewhere else following the arrest? How did you get there?

Will you be self-submitting to a DUI program and/or substance abuse counseling?

Do you have any comments you would like to provide in response? Would you like to make a public apology?”

At 11:42 AM Thorpe was asked about Barbanica calling on him to resign as mayor and if he had any response to it. Thorpe did not respond to either email, or to an attempt to reach him by phone as of 3:00 PM.

Barbanica Calls for Thorpe to Resign

In rspons to Thorpe’s arrest, Barbanica is calling on him to resign as mayor.

“What I feel, at this time is that we have serious business in the City of Antioch to deal with and we don’t need to be distracted by a DUI investigation of the mayor,” the mayor pro tem stated. “I do wish him the very best in dealing with this legal issue and anything else he’s dealing with, and I mean that. My hope is that he will step down and allow the rest of the council to focus on the issues of the city. I feel that he and everybody else has the right to due process. But I do believe he should deal with this issue separate from the city.”

Ogorchock Says Thorpe Not “Being a Good Example to Our Youth”

While not calling for Thorpe’s resignation, District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock said he’s not being a good example for the city’s youth.

“It’s unfortunate that Mayor Lamar Thorpe chose to drink and drive putting himself and others at risk. It shows a lapse in decision making, self-control and leadership,” she said. “He speaks to young people, wants them to follow him and participate in the city’s youth programs. An example is the Mayor’s Apprenticeship Program for youth that he’s introducing during the council meeting on Tuesday.”

“By his actions, I don’t believe Lamar is being a good example for our youth” Ogorchock added.

More Questions for Thorpe About Video Statements

Following review of Thorpe’s video, additional questions were emailed to him at 1:58 PM asking, “Were you really having dinner just prior to 1:27 AM when you were arrested? What time did you get to the restaurant? Did you really only have one drink in all that time that you were there? Is there anything you want to change about what you said in your video? Are there any other comments you want to add?”

He had not responded by publication time at 3:00 p.m.

Please check back later for any answers from Thorpe and any other updates to this report.

By Allen D. Payton

Following the Antioch City Council finalizing their redistricting process on Friday, March 11, with a majority of members voting to adopt a politically drawn, gerrymandered map of council districts, Antioch resident and business owner Mark Jordan sent a letter to the council members demanding they rescind their decisions and send the process to the Superior Court and threatening a lawsuit if they don’t. (See related article)

Following is a copy of Jordan’s letter:

March 15, 2022

City of Antioch

Mayor and Council Members

200 H Street

Antioch, CA  94509

RE:  NOTICE OF POTENTIAL LITIGATION

Redistricting / Map Selection / City of Antioch

Mayor and Council Members,

This NOTICE will serve to inform you that as a resident and citizen of the City of Antioch I challenge the process you have conducted to select the Redistricting Map for the City of Antioch in 2022.

I challenge Maps selected by the Council commonly known as; Map A Draft and Map A Draft Modified.  I state and claim you are in violation of your Oaths of Office, the California Government Code and the California Elections Code.

DEMAND IS MADE AS FOLLOWS:

1. You AGENDA the Rescission of both selections of Map A Draft and Map A Draft Modified at the next Council meeting not later than March 22, 2022.
2. VOTE to rescind approval of both gerrymandered maps which you have selected, which exist approved by the Council in conflict with each other.
3. You MOVE to deliver the entire process of the selection of the Antioch Redistricting Map to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa notifying the Court that the City of Antioch is unable to complete the process of redistricting in a manner that is not gerrymandered. This DEMAND of delivery to the Superior Court is made pursuant to Elections Code Section 21609.

RATIONALE FOR DEMAND:

1. On January 25, 2022 the Council decided on two final maps (Map B and Map 91) stating to the public that one of the two would be the Final Redistricting Map.
2. On February 8, 2022 the Council rejected both Maps they had decided were the two final Maps and there was no vote to rescind the previous selection of the final maps.
3. On February 22, 2022 the Council returned Map A Draft to consideration without a motion.
4. On February 22, 2022 members of the Council including the Mayor actively modified Map A Draft in a gerrymandered manner to create Map A Draft Modified.
5. On March 8, 2022 the Council selected Map A Draft, a gerrymandered map.
6. On March 11, 2022 the Council selected Map A Draft Modified without a motion to rescind Map A Draft. Map A Draft Modified is a gerrymandered map.

You have moved off the two final maps selected January 25, 2022 without properly voting to reconsider rejected maps.  You have currently approved two conflicting Maps without rescinding a previous action; the selection of Map A Draft on March 8, 2022.

The Council has and remains in violation of Elections Code Section 21601, subsections 1 through 4 inclusive, by selections of both Map A Draft and Map A Draft Modified because neither map meets the requirements of the Elections Code and both are gerrymandered.

If you fail to take the aforementioned DEMANDED ACTIONS I will move to seek immediate judicial relief including but not limited to a stay of your decisions concerning redistricting, a revocation of any Map you have selected along with seeking any attorney’s fees and costs for your violations of the Government Code and Elections Code.  I will further request any other relief the Court may choose to award.

Your immediate attention to this MATTER and DEMAND of action is required.

Sincerely,

Mark Jordan

Cc:  City Attorney, City Clerk

Via:  USPS and email

—————-

Next Tuesday’s council meeting agenda released on Friday, March 18 does not include the action demanded by Jordan.

Were supposed to first adopt a motion to reconsider map or rescind previous motion

“A motion to adjourn shall be in order at any time, except as follows: (A) When made as an interruption of a member speaking.” – Antioch City Code

By Allen D. Payton

At the end of their special Antioch City Council meeting on redistricting late Friday afternoon, March 11, 2022, while District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock was attempting to speak, Mayor Lamar Thorpe violated city ordinance and Robert’s Rules of Order by allowing a motion to adjourn to be made, seconded and voted on. In addition, both Thorpe violated the state’s Brown Act open meeting law when he allowed District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker to respond to comments by those in attendance who spoke on the redistricting maps item, and she violated it as well, by doing so. That’s according to both the Antioch City Code and former Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen.

While Thorpe wouldn’t allow Ogorchock unlimited time to speak, he did allow her three minutes “like any other member of the public” pointing out that the item on the agenda was Public Comments. Ogorchock began to speak, but Thorpe wouldn’t allow her to continue and instead allowed the illegal motion to occur.

Following Thorpe’s lead in asking for a motion to adjourn, Torres-Walker made the motion and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson seconded it. The motion then passed 3-2 with Ogorchock and Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica voting no. (See related article)

As previously reported, during the discussion on her motion to approve Draft Map A – Modified, Torres-Walker chastised and lectured those in attendance who spoke during public comments for using the terms “ignorance” and “circus” because she claims they are racist toward Black people. She also complained about people being critical of her leadership and that of Thorpe and Wilson, because they happen to be Black.

Antioch City Code Prevents Making Motions to Adjourn to Interrupt a Council Member Speaking

Thorpe and the two councilwomen violated the Antioch City Code by making and voting on the motion to adjourn interrupting Ogorchock while she was speaking. In Section 2-1.106  MOTIONS TO ADJOURN, it reads “A motion to adjourn shall be in order at any time, except as follows: (A) When made as an interruption of a member speaking.”

Former City Clerk Simonsen Says Brown Act, Robert’s Rules of Order Were Violated

Referring to Torres-Walker’s comments, Simonsen was asked if it is council policy and/or rules that council members are not allowed to respond to or engage with members of the public who speak during the meetings. He was also asked, if council members are allowed to speak ad infinitum on a matter not on the agenda or part of a motion during the discussion of that motion.

Simonsen responded, “The Brown Act does not permit council members to respond to speakers during Public Comments (anything not on the agenda). On an agenda item, the council members are to only speak to that agenda item, and it is the mayor who is responsible for getting them back on track. Also, as you know, there are no time limits on a council member speaking once they have been recognized to speak. And once a motion has been made and seconded, council members can speak on the motion or even make a substitute motion.”

Simonsen was also asked if it is also in Robert’s Rules of Order that a motion cannot be made while another council member has the floor.

“When a council member has been recognized to speak, they cannot be interrupted by another council member who wants to make a motion,” he responded. “As City Clerk, the City Attorney deferred to me, as I knew Roberts Rules better than them.”

“Lori could have asked for a ‘Point of Privilege’ and been allowed to speak for as long as she liked,” he added. “It is permitted under Robert’s Rules.”

Similar Questions for City Attorney, Clerk and Council Go Unanswered

The following questions were emailed to City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, City Clerk Ellie Householder and the five council members late Monday afternoon: “Isn’t it in the Brown Act and council policy that council members are not allowed to respond to or engage with members of the public who speak during the meetings? Also, aren’t council members precluded from speak ad infinitum on a matter not on the agenda or as part of a motion during the discussion of that motion? Isn’t it also in Robert’s Rules of Order that no motion can be made while another council member has the floor? Also, once a council member has the floor and been recognized to speak doesn’t the Brown Act allow them to speak for an unlimited amount of time? Finally, who is the parliamentarian for the council, the city attorney or city clerk?”

No on responded as of Wednesday at 1:00 PM.

Additional Questions on Procedure for City Attorney, City Clerk Go Unanswered

Smith and Householder were emailed questions early Saturday evening asking if the council violated Robert’s Rules of Order during their special meeting on Friday since no motion for reconsideration was made and vote taken prior to the motion to adopt a different map than was already adopted at Tuesday night’s meeting? Isn’t that required for a member of the majority in the previous vote? If so, does the council need to hold another meeting for a final, final vote on a final redistricting map? If not, why not?”

Additional attempts to reach Smith and Householder by phone Tuesday morning were also unsuccessful and no responses were received from them as of Wednesday at 1:00 PM.

Simonsen Says Council Violated Rules by Not First Adopting Motion for Reconsideration

The same additional questions were sent to Simonsen early Monday evening. He responded Tuesday morning with, “A motion for reconsideration actually needs to be made the night that the motion passed. The only other way possible is to put on the special meeting agenda two items: The first would be to rescind the previous resolution, and the second would be a new resolution with what was originally wanted by Walker. The City Attorney should have known this.”

“Since Robert’s Rules are in the Municipal Code by Ordinance, it has to be followed,” Simonsen added.

Questions for First Amendment Coalition

Similar questions were asked Tuesday morning of the First Amendment Coalition (FAC), which is, according to their website “an award-winning nonprofit dedicated to advancing free speech, open government and public participation in civic affairs.”

Monica Price, Legal Fellow with FAC responded Wednesday morning with the following:

Brown Act Only Allows Council Members to Briefly Respond to Members of the Public Who Speak During Meetings

Under Government Code section 54954.2(a)(3), members of a legislative body or staff can briefly respond to statements or questions by members of the public attending the meeting. In addition, they can: (1) Ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make a brief report on their own activities; (2) refer an issue to staff for factual information; (3) request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter; or (4) take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.

In general, a legislative body cannot take action on any item that is not on the agenda for a meeting under Government Code section 54954.2(a)(3). There are exceptions for brief responses to questions, emergencies, and continued items. While I was unable to find a provision in the Brown Act that prohibits council members from speaking about an item not on the agenda, their internal rules for decorum might. (See Simonsen’s response above).

Not Aware if Brown Act Allows Council Members to Speak for an Unlimited Amount of Time

The Brown Act is intended to provide public access to meetings of California local government agencies.  The goal is public access, not necessarily setting rules for how members of public bodies interact with each other.  I’m not aware of any provision in the Brown Act that governs council members speaking and for how long.  This would likely be in the Antioch City Code or the Council’s internal rules. (See Simonsen’s response, above).

Not Sure Who is the Parliamentarian for the Council, City Attorney or City Clerk

I wasn’t able to determine who the parliamentarian is based on the Antioch City Code.  If the City Clerk is sitting at the meetings moving things along, I suspect that they are the “Parliamentarian.”  The City Attorney is there to advise the board on substantive legal issues (court cases, statutes and ordinances) related to the meeting and to ensure that they are complying with the Brown Act at public meetings, so I do not think that they would be the “Parliamentarian” as the City Attorney has a different purpose.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Join us Saturday April 2nd, 11am – 3pm for Antioch Historical Society’s Sesquicentennial Kick-Off BBQ! This will be a fun day of food, music and great family fun! Tour our beautiful museum free of charge, live music from Vocal Ease and our local high school and view Antioch’s Middle Schools Art Contest Winners! This event is free to the public. However, food and beverages are an additional charge. Your ticket purchase is for a delicious barbeque meal.

Don’t miss this historical event and help us celebrate Antioch’s 150th Anniversary of Cityhood! A Sesquicentennial Almanac and Commemorative Coin will be available for sale at this event. All proceeds raised at this event go to support the Antioch Historical Society and Museum!

The BBQ will take place on the front lawn of the Museum located at 1500 W. 4th Street, at the end and curve of Auto Center Drive.

For tickets visit https://www.eventbrite.com/e/antioch-historical-societys-sesquicentennial-kick-off-bbq-tickets-234060640677

To learn more about Antioch’s Sesquicentennial of Cityhood on February 6, 1872 and see all of this year’s events and activities click here and here.

Moves Ogorchock into District 4 who announces run against Wilson in November

Torres-Walker chastises public speakers claiming using term “ignorance” and calling council “circus” is racist against Black members and is referring to them as “monkeys”

Thorpe gavels down Ogorchock at end of meeting, preventing her from speaking and calling for evaluation of interim city manager

By Allen D. Payton

During a contentious, special meeting of the Antioch City Council late Friday afternoon, on another 3-2 split vote the final redistricting map was approved, again. This time the council majority approved Draft Map A – Modified, which was politically drawn with direct input from both Mayor Lamar Thorpe and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker and is more gerrymandered than Draft Map A, which the three approved on Tuesday night – believing they had approved the modified map. The final map moves District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock into District 4, which is currently represented by Councilwoman Monica Wilson. Ogorchock threatened to run against Wilson whose seat is up for re-election in November. (See meeting video and related articles here and here)

All seven members of the public who spoke during the meeting, which began at 5:15 p.m., were in favor of either Map 91, previously rejected by a majority of council members, and Map 521, both drawn by members of the public, because they said those maps comply with the requirements in the FAIR MAPS Act, while Draft Map A – Modified does not. That’s because the final map divides three neighborhoods in violation of the act, including Mira Vista Hills, split between Districts 2 and 4, and the neighborhood between Lone Tree Way and Hillcrest Avenue south of Highway 4 and north of `Davison Drive which uses Garrow Drive as the boundary line between Districts 2 and 3, as Thorpe directed the consultants of Q2 to draw during the Feb. 22 council meeting. In addition, the neighborhood near Country Hills Drive, just east of Deer Valley Road, is divided using Asilomar and Montara Drives, as the consultants were directed to draw by Torres-Walker during that same meeting.

During Council Discussion Ogorchock Questions Torres-Walker, Announces Run for Election in District 4 in November

After Thorpe directed the consultants to make more modifications to Draft Map A – Modified, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica made a motion to adopt Map 521. That only gained Ogorchock’s support, and it failed on a 2-3 vote.

Torres-Walker then made a motion to adopt Draft Map A – Modified and Wilson seconded it.

During council discussion, Ogorchock said, “lines are just being moved to accommodate percentages, that’s it. We’re not looking at communities of interest. We’re not looking at any of the items in the FAIR MAPS Act.”

She pointed out that three maps created by members of the public, 91, 516 and 521 comply with the act.

“You are the public, we should be listening to you,” Ogorchock said to the audience.

“Is there a reason you went up Montara and you had a hard time saying Montara? Why did you go up Montara and Asilomar down to Deer Valley off of Country Hills? Why?” she asked Torres-Walker, referring to her making changes to Draft Map A the Feb. 22 meeting, in which Torres-Walker asked the consultants about Montara Drive and specifically had the consultant move the boundary line between Districts 3 and 4 further north to Asilomar Drive from Country Hills Drive as it was in Draft Map A which includes the street where Ogorchock lives.

Torres-Walker replied simply, “I just moved the lines.”

Ogorchock shot back, “why? Did you know I lived there?” to which Thorpe hit the gavel interrupting Ogorchock.

Torres-Walker replied, “I have no idea where you live.”

Ogorchock continued by saying, “residents have participated and are being ignored. Residents created the maps. They know our communities. They know where the lines should be drawn. They do. We should be listening to them.”

She then read from the requirements in state law and pointing out how Draft Map A – Modified violates the requirements to create “a district in which one may travel from any one location to another without crossing a district boundary…Asilomar, Montara, Silverado. There’s a bunch. We’re not following that one.”

“Criterion 7,” Ogorchock continued. “The council shall not adopt council district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party. Communities of interest may not include relationships with political parties, incumbents or political candidates. We’re failing on this one. Favoring and discriminating is happening on this map.”

“Criterion 6, assume to guard against all types of gerrymandering,” she stated. “This is what’s happening. We’re failing on that one. We’re gerrymandering. I’m not.”

“Criterion 5, lines need to make geographical sense,” Ogorchock pointed out. “Those lines on that map make no sense whatsoever. They’re not easy to follow. You don’t know where the streets are. If a resident drives down the street they should know I’m in District 4, I’m in District 3, I’m in District 1, I’m in District 2. They can’t tell. District lines should be straight forward.”

“When people came forward, they talked about communities of interest,” she shared. “We’ve ignored them. We’ve ignored everything.”

“If you look at Garrow Drive…same neighborhood, same socio-economic individuals in that neighborhood. You’re dividing them,” Ogorchock continued. “Silverado, Foothills. They’re from 1970’s. You have, still original homeowners up there. You’re dividing them.”

“Country Hills,” the District 3 councilwoman continued. “You’re dividing Ponderosa at Jack London (Elementary) School. I live there. You have created a map to go up Montara, specifically said Montara, to go up Montara to Asilomar to Deer Valley to put me in District 4. If that happens, I’m announcing, tonight I will be running for District 4.”

“You are breaking everything in this packet, and you are opening us up for a lawsuit,” Ogorchock concluded

Torres-Walker Chastises Public, Claims Using Terms “Ignorance” and “Circus” Against Black Officials is Racist

During public comments members of the audience criticized the council with one, Sandy Hartrick saying, “the city council should not be drawing maps. It brings into question the gerrymandering or just plain ignorance of the city council.” Another speaker, Karen Abfalter, said, “this meeting should not be happening at this hour at 5:15…this has literally become a three-ring circus. Shame on you,” to applause from the audience. That didn’t sit well with Torres-Walker who, during council discussion on the motion to adopt the final map, chastised the residents in the audience, making the claim that using the terms “ignorance” and “circus” about elected officials who are Black is racist, the latter term because it’s referring to them as monkeys. (See video)

“What I do want to say is what I have heard is references to ignorance or being ignorant and I’m just going to have to assume that this reference around ignorance is being pushed towards those on the council who just so happen to be Black,” Torres-Walker said.

Those in the audience reacted by saying “oh” and “no” and with laughter which resulted in Thorpe pounding his gavel multiple times, attempting to stop the councilwoman from continuing her rant, but she continued talking over the mayor.

“I also want to say, that what I also heard, what I also heard to myself that was absolutely ignorant was a reference to a circus,” stated Torres-Walker while raising her voice over Thorpe’s gaveling and saying, “Councilmember Torres-Walker, hold on, let me finish. Councilmember Torres-Walker.”

“And when you are talking to people of color and Black people in particular you do not reference a circus because we are not monkeys and we are not clowns,” she said as Thorpe continued to pound his gavel and call her name to get her to stop talking, which she did, briefly.

But Torres-Walker then said, “you can say I’m a monkey all you want but that just references your ignorance” as Thorpe again pounded his gavel, calling her name and saying, “excuse me”. She finally stopped speaking.

Thorpe then told the audience to not interrupt when people are speaking and offered apologies to Torres-Walker.

“I’m just tired of the racial references and the constant attacks on my leadership and the leadership of people of color on this council,” Torres-Walker then said in a calmer voice and went on to speak about the process.

Wilson, who was not present but attended the meeting online, thanked Torres-Walker for her comments.

Thorpe Gavels Down Ogorchock, Prevents Her from Speaking After Vote

He tried to limit Ogorchock to just three minutes saying what was on the agenda was public comments and that she could have three minutes just like any member of the public. Ogorchock refused the time limit and while trying to speak, calling for an evaluation of Interim City Manager Con Johnson, Thorpe gaveled her down and telling her, “you are out of order”.

“You can beat the crap out of it. I don’t care,” Ogorchock said to Thorpe. She then appealed to City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith asking, “are you going to say something? I’m part of this council and I can say what I want and I don’t have a time.”

“Let me make this clear,” Thorpe then stated. “The agenda says ‘public comments’. If you want to make public comments, that’s fine. You get three minutes like…the rest of the public. Any member of the public may comment only on unagendized items. So, you can say whatever you want for three minutes.”
“I’m a councilmember. So, therefore I’m afforded more time,” Ogorchock responded.

“I’m trying.” she tried to continue while raising her forefinger, but Thorpe cut her off saying, “excuse me. Don’t point your finger at me. Keep it down, relax.”

“I just did. I did. It goes up. No,” Ogorchock shot back. “My comments are to…”

Thorpe interrupted her, again saying, “motion to adjourn.”

“The interim city manager to have an evaluation,” she finished saying.

“Motion to adjourn,” the mayor repeated.

“Can we allot the Councilwoman Ogorchock hree minutes as a…?” Smith asked. But Thorpe interrupted him.

Torres-Walker then said, “motion to adjourn” as Thorpe said, “I did give her three minutes. She didn’t want it.”

“Motion to adjourn,” Torres-Walker repeated. “Is there a second?” Thorpe asked, to which Wilson offered a second.

It passed on a 3-2 vote with Ogorchock and Barbanica voting no. Thorpe then hit the gavel to end the meeting. (See video on the Antioch Herald Facebook page or on the complete video of the meeting on the city’s website)

Barbanica Calls Final Redistricting Map Disservice to Community

“What you just witnessed was a disservice to this community,” said Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica following the meeting. “A majority of the council voted on a 3-2 to divide three long-standing neighborhoods in our community.”

Public Speakers Respond to Torres-Walker Deny Racial Intent in Using Terms “Ignorance” and “Circus”

When asked about her use of the term “ignorance” and if she meant something racial by it, Hartrick said, “not at all. I’m just appalled that she’s taking regular English language and twisting it for her purpose. I felt bad that she got so upset by words that had no intention of implying any racial connotation.”

When asked if she meant anything racial by using the phrase “three-ring circus”, Abfalter said, “Seriously? It’s an idiom. I had to laugh. I showed my husband a video of the meeting. He said, ‘you’re right. It’s a three-ring circus.’”

“I’ve lived in this city for 35 years and this is what we get?” she asked. “I’m so disappointed. It’s so unprofessional. They’re supposed to be representing ‘we the people’. This is our city, too. Not those five. They’re supposed to represent their constituents. They’re making things miserable.”

Council majority voted for Draft Map A Tuesday night, expected to switch to Draft Map A – Modified which moves Councilwoman Ogorchock from District 3 to 4; legal challenge expected

By Allen D. Payton

Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe has called a special meeting for Friday, March 11 at 5:15 PM on redistricting to choose a final redistricting map, in spite of the fact the council already adopted one on a 3-2 vote Tuesday night. While there was confusion as to which map was adopted, that was cleared up by the video of the meeting which shows District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker say, “I’d like to make a motion that the council adopt Map A, Draft Map A” which was followed by District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson seconding the motion. (See related article)

They were joined by Thorpe in voting for Draft Map A, with Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica, who supported Map 521 and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock who was still in support of Map 91, voting no. Map 91 had previously been rejected by a majority of council members and Draft Map A – Modified and Map 521 were moved forward to Tuesday night’s meeting from the Feb. 22 meeting. However, in addition to those maps, all the other maps drawn by the consultants of Q2 Data & Research and members of the public were included in the council’s agenda packet. Redistricting ACC030822  (See all the maps on the Council’s Redistricting webpage)

As previously reported, Barbanica said on Wednesday that he will be unable to attend Friday’s meeting due to “a previous engagement”.

Draft Map A – Modified Moves Ogorchock from District 3 to 4

The council majority is expected to switch from Draft Map A adopted on Tuesday night to Draft Map A – Modified which splits the Mira Vista Hills neighborhood and moves the boundary between Districts 2 and 4 from Lone Tree Way to Garrow Drive, dividing that neighborhood, the modification which the consultants of Q2 were directed to do by Thorpe. For the neighborhood near Country Hills Drive, the modification to that part of the map was directed to be done by Torres-Walker. That moves District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock into District 4 and would allow her to run against Wilson who is up for re-election in November.

Likewise, Map 91 would have moved Wilson from District 4 into District 3 by moving the boundary line in the current district map and in both Maps A from the Mokelumne Trail to Lone Tree Way. It would have prevented Wilson from running for re-election in November unless she moved. At one point during the process, Maps 91 and B were the two finalists chosen by the council, with 91 supported by the majority of those who offered public comments, but were both later rejected.

Members of the public spoke against Draft Map A – Modified during Tuesday’s meeting because they said it divides neighborhoods in violation of the state’s Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities and Political Subdivisions (FAIR MAPS) Act which was passed by the legislature in 2019. It has a maximum population deviation of 7.71% between Districts 3 and 4. Map 521 doesn’t divide any neighborhoods and complies with the act, using major roadways as boundary lines to divide the districts. It has a total deviation of 2.15% between Districts 1 and 3.

State, Federal Law Requirements New Map Must Follow

According to the city staff report on the matter for the council’s meeting on Tuesday, March 8, 2022, “The districts must…comply with the FAIR MAPS Act, which was adopted by the California legislature as AB 849 and took effect January 1, 2020. Under the Act, the City Council shall draw and adopt boundaries using the following criteria in the listed order of priority (Elections Code 21621(c)):

1. Comply with the federal requirements of equal population and the Voting Rights Act
2. Be geographically contiguous
3. Undivided neighborhoods and “communities of interest” (socio-economic geographic areas that should be kept together)
4. Display easily identifiable boundaries
5. Be compact (do not bypass one group of people to get to a more distant group of people)
6. Shall not favor or discriminate against a political party.”

Further, the staff report reads, “The Final Redistricting Map will comply with the federal requirements of equal population and the Voting Rights Act, and the California FAIR MAPS Act, in the following manner:

(1) The districts are geographically contiguous. The districts are arrayed in a simple and logical form without any islands and minimal intrusions from the area of one district into another;

(2) To the extent practicable, the Final Redistricting Map respects the geographic integrity of local neighborhoods and local communities of interest. The Council heard testimony about what constitute communities of interest in the public eye.

(3) The districts are easily identifiable and understandable by residents. The districts in the Final Redistricting Map form a relatively simple pattern.

(4) To the extent practicable, the districts are geographically compact. Their configurations for the most part are compact, simple shapes, with nearby populations included in the same districts.

(5) The districts are balanced in terms of total population and voting age population. The districts are well within the one-person/one-vote deviations permitted under federal and state voting rights laws.

(6) The districts conform to concentration of minority voters. The Final Redistricting Map creates one majority/minority Black voting district.”

Legal Challenge Expected

If the city council adopts Draft Map A – Modified a legal challenge by residents is expected, as occurred in Martinez, which lead to the formation of their independent citizens redistricting commission. As previously reported, in that city’s process, the commission chooses the map, and the council members have no say.

Viewing and Public Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torres-Walker clearly stated “Draft Map A” in her motion

Members of public claim it’s gerrymandered and out of compliance with FAIR MAPS Act, lawsuit expected

By Allen D. Payton

During a special meeting/study session Tuesday night held at 5:30 p.m., the Antioch City Council on a 3-2 vote adopted redistricting Draft Map A. However, confusion arose on Wednesday over which map was actually adopted, since the council had the options of Draft Map A, drawn by the consultants of Q2 and which four council members previously rejected, and Draft Map A – Modified, which was modified during the Feb. 22 council meeting by Mayor Lamar Thorpe and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, and was part of the council’s agenda packet. In addition, Map 521 which was drawn by a member of the public, was also discussed by council members and public speakers during the meeting.

After input from the public and discussion by the council members, Thorpe asked if there was a motion. Torres-Walker said, “I’d like to make a motion that the council adopt Map A, Draft Map A” and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson seconded it. Then without further discussion Thorpe cast the deciding vote, while both Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock voted no.

But due to the confusion by council members and City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, an effort was made to schedule a special meeting for Friday, March 11 at 4:30 p.m. for a revote by the council.

Questions for Council, City Attorney

Due to the confusion by members of the public, questions were emailed Wednesday morning to Torres-Walker and Wilson, copying City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, Thorpe, Barbanica and Ogorchock asking, “as the maker and seconder of the motion to adopt Map A, was your intent to adopt Draft Map A or Draft Map A – Modified?”

Smith was asked, “was that the final vote or was it just to move the final map forward for a final vote during the regular council session at the next meeting which will begin at 7 PM?”

Torres-Walker, Wilson and Thorpe were then asked, “why go through the entire process of having an online mapping tool for the public to use to submit maps if you were just going to reject them all and choose a map drawn by the consultants based on your input, and who admitted they don’t know Antioch like you and the residents do, and in spite of the fact the vast majority of public speakers were in favor of either Maps 91 or 521? Was that all a sham and just for show to make people feel like they were having a voice?”

Barbanica Responds, Opposes Both Map A’s

“It was crystal clear that the motion was made for Map A and was seconded by another council member and adopted on a 3-2 vote,” he responded. “I was against Map A. I’m still against Map A.”

“I received a call from the city attorney, today who told me there was potential confusion about which map was approved and if I had time to attend a special meeting on Friday,” Barbanica continued. “I told him ‘no, I have a previous engagement’ and that “Map A is what was adopted’.”

When asked which Map A he believes was adopted Barbanica responded, “Draft Map A, not modified.”

“I don’t support Draft Map A or Modified Map A because they are bad for the community as they divide neighborhoods and communities of interest,” he continued. “I support Map 91 as I have since it was first presented. I was willing to support Map 521 but that was voted down on a 2-3 vote. I supported Map 91 but that was voted down on a 2-3 vote.”

Herald Meeting Video Confirms Torres-Walker said “Draft Map A” in Her Motion

After reviewing the cell phone video filmed by this reporter in attendance at the meeting, Torres-Walker can be clearly heard saying “Draft Map A” in her motion, before Wilson seconded it and the vote on the motion passed 3-2.

In addition, the council meeting video posted on the city’s website Wednesday afternoon also shows what Torres-Walker said in her motion, for “Draft Map A”, beginning at the 22:50 mark.

No response was received by Smith regarding the need for another vote or if last night’s vote was the final on the council’s new redistricting map.

Lawsuit by Residents Expected

Members of the public spoke and said Draft Map A – Modified was not in compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act which was adopted and went into effect January 2020, after the current Antioch City Council districts were approved in 2018. Draft Map A was drawn based on that map, with one minor adjustment between Districts 3 and 4 which divides a neighborhood which the act says must be avoided if possible. The other map considered by the council during the meeting was Map 521, drawn by a member of the public, and doesn’t divide any neighborhoods.

As a result, discussions have begun of a possible lawsuit by residents, as occurred in Martinez, which forced that city council to form an independent redistricting commission and the adoption of the final map by the commission without any input from the council members.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

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

By Allen D. Payton

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

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

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

The item reads as follows:

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

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

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

Planning Commission Appointments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viewing and Public Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please check back for any updates to this report.