“this is too big, too important for our community (to settle for a two-member ad hoc committee). What I see is a series of forums…but it would be inclusive of everyone on the council.” – Mayor Sean Wright

By Allen Payton

During the second of two special meetings this week and after listing to seven hours of public comments from over 700 people, the Antioch City Council voted on a split vote Thursday night to oppose the formation of a two-person ad hoc committee on police reform as Councilman Lamar Thorpe had called for. He and Councilwoman Monica Wilson voted for it while the other three members voted against. Instead the council agreed to have Mayor Sean Wright call the first, of what is expected to be a series of public study sessions to discuss the matter as a whole, that will include the Police Crime Prevention Commission, and set it for Tuesday night, June 30.

At the first session, Antioch Police Chief T Brooks is expected to speak first, followed by those who have had issues with the police department, as Wright put it.

The meeting ran much smoother than Tuesday’s, as the various form letters submitted by several people on both sides of the issue were read once by city staff members, while just reading the names of all those who submitted the same letters. Wright opened the meeting saying there were about 200 public comments left to read.

Dan Stills was the first of only two members of the public available on Zoom to speak. He said, “now that we get staff, along comes the notion of…defunding police and the ad hoc committee. I am one of the silent majority, opposed to the ad hoc committee. We will be voting in November. I implore all of you to work with the police chief to make any necessary changes. We don’t need to dismantle…now is not the time to tear it down and rebuild it.”

City Finance Director Dawn Merchant then read some of the form letters and mentioned the names of all those who had submitted them.

One comment quoted the city’s Vision Statement and wrote in favor of forming the ad hoc committee.

“Chief Brooks has explained that the department has already implemented six of the eight reforms” read one letter opposing the ad hoc committee.

“Why do we need another politician run committee? We’re tired of your committees and lack of action,” wrote retired Antioch Sergeant Larry Hopwood and five others.

Another letter asked for a community forum led by Chief Brooks and submitted by several people.

“Racism is something that needs to be discussed by the entire community,” wrote one letter submitted by several members of the public

“I’ve been in Antioch since 1965…this is just a kneejerk reaction to what’s going on,” read a letter by one resident.

Carol Allen wrote, “We need our police not a committee of grandstanding politicians.”

Matt Vargas wrote, “Have you ever been burglarized, assaulted? I have. You defund our police and it takes longer to respond. We’re already understaffed.”

“I’ve seen no improvement in my neighborhood and it’s only gotten worse,” read another letter.

“Now is not the time to cut funding. Measure C is scheduled to sunset in 2021,” read another. That last part is not correct. Measure C’s half-cent sales tax was replaced by a full cent sales tax with the passage of Measure W.

“Please do not follow the cities of Oakland and San Francisco that have citizen boards run the police department,” read another letter by a Mr. Crum.

Michael Gobel wrote opposing the ad hoc committee, “We need to support these men and women who lay their lives on the line for us.”

Gary Shu opposed the ad hoc committee writing, “Do not defund our police. If we do our peaceful world as we know it will end. What about the school kids with no protection?”

“If you defund the police in Antioch, I want every dollar back I paid in taxes,” read another letter from a member of the public.

Wayne Butler wrote, “Leave the police alone. We still don’t have enough cops in this crime-ridden city. 97.3% of cops don’t even fire their gun in their entire 30-year career.”

“I would like to defund the police, they are fat and only go after women and minorities,” read another letter in support of the ad hoc committee.

“Antioch police activity must remain at the current level,” wrote another member of the public.

Nancy Green wrote, “I think APD is doing a good job.”

Sal Sbranti wrote, “I do not believe that the actions of the Antioch Police Department require us to support a witch hunt sponsored by Lamar Thorpe and Monica Wilson. Lamar’s comments and endorsement of “8 can’t wait” displays his bias and that alone should eliminate him from being a member of any ad hoc committee. The statements that Lamar has made, makes Antioch and our stellar police department look bad. Stellar?- violent crime down 15% from 2015 to 2019, citizens complaints down 40% from 2017 to 2019. Antioch Citizens passed “Measure C” in November of 2013 and “Measure W” in November of 2018, and it was April of this year when we finally met the goal number of Police that this City Council Authorized. If a committee is to be formed, it should not be called “Police Reform Committee” as again, that displays Lamar’s and the City Attorneys bias and the pre-judgement of this council.”

“I’ve personally heard stories of police brutality by people, here in Antioch. I expect the city council to put their full effort into this,” read another letter.

“I’ve seen the quality of life in Antioch deteriorate every year I’ve lived, here. Because the members of the committee will not be held accountable, I’m against it,” read another.

Megan wrote, “Countless lives have been taken. Antioch is not an exception. You must disarm and dismantle the police. We want a new community not cops.”

Steve Libator wrote against the ad hoc committee but in favor of a community forum, “You want to bring attention to yourself. Please stop.”

“Maybe you can teach officers how to love people who don’t look like them. While I do support the police, I was disappointed with the way the chief handled the COVID-19 situation and left us to fend for ourselves,” wrote another member of the public in favor of forming the ad hoc committee.

Sara Gubeer, a 2018 graduate of Dozier-Libbey wrote supporting the ad hoc committee about the deaths of people across the country. “The police don’t actually serve or protect anyone. First, we must start with our own community.”

Robert Pohl wrote against forming the ad hoc committee. “We voted twice to increase funding for police Now people want to defund it, which doesn’t make sense. Antioch has a diverse and progressive police department.”

Luis Crockett wrote “I don’t support our chief and police officers, they are racist and constantly profile black and brown members of our community. This has to stop now.”

Victor Wen, a DVHS alumni class of 2020 submitted the same form letter making accusations against the police department and called for it to be defunded and disarmed.

Beverly Knight who opposed the ad hoc committee wrote, “The police portrayed on the national news are not the Antioch Police Department. Chief Brooks works hard to make community policing an imperative. I will believe APD will embrace positive change. Don’t try to fix something that’s not broken.”

Sarah Laughlin, a 2015 DVHS graduate who is getting her law degree wrote, “I’ve seen this community’s ability to lift people up but also tear it down. I’ve seen how the local school system that targets black and brown students.”

Vanessa Helmann wrote, “I don’t believe a special committee will serve our community.”

John Fischer wrote, “This attempt…is a slap in the face of the police department. The letter sent out by Chief Brooks was well written. I don’t agree with all that he wrote.

“I do not agree with an ad hoc committee…there is a need to begin a comprehensive approach…to build trust between the police and the community,” wrote another member of the public, citing new legislation introduced in Congress.

Tina Gillette wrote, “I live in District 1…that is represented by Joy Motts. While most of us support the protesters” and called for community forum.

Lucy Meinhardt wrote, “Our entire country is in a state of upheaveal. Continiuing to improve our policing is what is needed. There’s no reason Antioch cannot be part of this national movement” and asked that representatives of color lead the effort.

“Antioch PD works with people of all races in the community. We all need to live together as one. Focus on our real problems,” wrote another.

Harry Raymond wrote, “The City of Antioch is blessed by a very well run police department. The citizens of Antioch…twice agreed to more taxes. APD finally reached the target minimum after a number of years.”

Ariana Edwards wrote, “This community needs care not cops. It’s time for reform” and supported the ad hoc committee.

“It’s time to defund the police…and invest in the community and schools, instead,” another letter read.

“The council can look past the current hysteria” wrote another person who called for a standing committee of three council members. But that would violate the state’s Brown Act open meeting law, which is why sub- and ad hoc committees

NAACP East County Branch submitted a comment calling for, “wholly and unequivocally a police oversight committee in the City of Antioch…that will mete out discipline.”

Mike Barbanica wrote, “What we don’t need is more political grandstanding by members of our city council. Vote no on the ad hoc and look at alternatives that will involve the entire community.”

Willie Mims, a Pittsburg resident and member of the NAACP East County Branch, wrote, “Since the murder of George Floyd, the whole country and the world are protesting police brutality, white racism and white supremacy.  You, who live in the City of Antioch, must not place your heads in the sand and put a mask over your eyes in order to cover up the fact that you have not experienced some of these same incidents here in your own town.  You had and still do have some officers operating under the Color of Law.

This city must not be afraid to welcome a thorough review and reevaluation of the police department’s excessive force policy, an examination of its accountability component, and its use and misuse of its canine unit when dealing with non-aggressive citizens.  Not only that, but there should be some serious ongoing training in racial profiling, racial bias and de-escalation techniques, especially when dealing with mental health issues, black people, and other peoples of color.

A civilian oversight commission would be best for the city of Antioch and should be put in place to address any complaints against the police department.

And lastly, I stand with the city council as they grapple with this American racial problem.  I take issue, however, with the police association and their attack upon certain council members.  Their resistance to either review or to even consider a citizen oversight committee is quite troubling.  Whatever the case, the issue of race is placed back on both Antioch’s and America’s table of destiny. I hope that the council will do what is right. Know this, that I stand with those people wanting change at this time in our history.”

Joel Firstenberger praised Chief Brooks and wrote, “I don’t support the political views of Black Lives Matter. I do not want the council to take on this agenda to please two board members.”

“Antioch can be a beacon of how to operate the police department. This isn’t political. It’s personal. I have black sons and want to know this town embraces their beautiful lives,” wrote one resident.

Another member of the public wrote about “an instigator and a follower…is this leadership we need…? Absolutely not.”

Gary Walker wrote, “My husband and I would like to support an ad hoc committee…to give voice to the people…and has a laser focus agenda. We only see positive change from this initiative.”

Zoe Jones wrote, asking for the council to defund the police and spending it on other things in the community.

Ruth Pastor wrote, “We don’t have enough police as it is, now.”

Sandy McGee wrote, “I think an ad hoc committee is a slap in the face” to the police department. Councilman Thorpe needs to pick something else to help your campaign.”

“I am a rare species of a Republican in this town, but I support the formation of an ad hoc committee…” wrote another member of the public.

Edward Piller wrote, “We must listen to our hearts and the youth. Please support the ad hoc committee.”

“Being a roofing contractor is four times more dangerous” than being a police officer, read another letter.

Community Development Director Forrest Ebbs continued to read the remainder of the emailed public comments.

One of the form letters, mainly submitted by recent, local high school graduates, called for the implementation of 8 to Abolition which claims the 8 Can’t Wait effort won’t work and instead, wants to simply abolish police departments and prisons.

According to their website, “Campaign Zero released its 8 Can’t Wait campaign, offering a set of eight reforms they claim would reduce police killings by 72%. As police and prison abolitionists, we believe that this campaign is dangerous and irresponsible, offering a slate of reforms that have already been tried and failed, that mislead a public newly invigorated to the possibilities of police and prison abolition, and that do not reflect the needs of criminalized communities.”

“The end goal of these reforms is not to create better, friendlier, or more community-oriented police or prisons. Instead, we hope to build toward a society without police or prisons, where communities are equipped to provide for their safety and wellbeing.” The organization wants to Defund the Police and city officials to, “Reject any proposed expansion to police budgets. Demand the highest budget cuts per year, until they slash police budget to zero. Slash police salaries across the board until they are zeroed out.”

“Our police should be part of the solution,” read one letter. “Let’s create a community-based committee…not an ad hoc for a political agenda.”

“I support the ad hoc committee for police reform…if you believe the Antioch PD. The entire institution of police is based on racism. I can almost guarantee that the top level of police in Antioch have not taken a class on diversity,” read another letter.

Andrew Johnson wrote, “this is a political stunt. There are other issues the council should be focused on. More action and less political propaganda. It’s a dumpster fire of an idea.”

Jim Lanter wrote, “I believe Chief Brooks and the department would take a big step back if this committee was formed. Do we need conversation? Yes. Can it be done in another form? Yes…in a peaceful, open forum…”

“All cops are thugs…of a racist, capitalist system. Shame on all of you,” read another letter.

“Mr. Thorpe, a lot of the items you told us you would work on when you were elected haven’t gotten done,” read another letter.

Another member of the public wrote, “Thank you for supporting the police…in brutalizing the poor. All hail capitalism. All hail our ruling class.”

Theresa Householder wrote, “we need more police training…police reform. Period.”

Antioch School Board Member Ellie Householder wrote, “There’s no reason our community can’t have a conversation about police reform. I respect our police. It’s not a political action to call for police reform. Don’t listen to the voice of the minority.”

“Please for the safety of our residents, defund the APD,” read another letter.

Linda Reilly wrote, “You already moved funds from Measure W against the will of Antioch voters. Quit fighting the race war.” However, the funds from Measure W cannot all be spent on police, as that would violate the law, since it was passed as a general tax requiring only a majority vote to pass, and not a special tax, which would require a two-thirds vote to pass. So, some of the funds – as was written in the language of the measure – must be spent on other things in the city, such as youth programs.

Shagoofa Khan wrote, “People are finally realizing change needs to happen, now. This ad hoc committee is not an attack on the police department. All I want is to see Antioch to thrive and be the best it can be. It’s not just the police that can keep us safe, but all of us, together.”

Former Antioch Mayor Pro Tem and Planning Commissioner Manny Soliz, Jr. wrote, “I am categorically opposed to the creation of an ad hoc committee to review Police and Public Safety issues. In light of events at the state and federal level, this proposal is a politically motivated gimmick, a trick to portray certain city leaders as concerned about the public. They are motivated by the upcoming election in November, and nothing else. These committees have a long history of weakening public safety, creating an environment where criminal elements can thrive and endanger citizens, private property and precious business interests. We have a police Chief and department dedicated to protecting the city, and doing so in accordance with accepted ethical policing practices. Our police department is already adopting the measures outlined to avoid the recent events happening in other communities. So, I ask, what problem are we trying to solve?”

“Focus on the issues Antioch is facing: crime prevention, code enforcement, homelessness and economic development,” he continued. “Just a final thought, what do you think a manufactured problem says about our image? Weak leadership leads to a weak community. Abandon this ill-conceived, politically motivated committee. Let’s not create problems where they really don’t exist.”

Kerry Ingvardsen opposed the ad hoc committee writing, “We already have a Police Crime Prevention Commission.”

Former Police Crime Prevention Commissioner Harry Thurston wrote, “The Antioch Police Department, as with all city police departments, has been granted by the citizens of Antioch extensive rights, including the use of deadly force, to apprehend and detain citizens accused of violating federal, state, county and city laws, ordinances. It imperative, within a democracy, community oversite and control is fully implemented over any department that has been granted such rights.

Within the city of Antioch, a significant percentage of the City’s citizenry feel they have little to no oversight control on the development, implementation or changes to the Antioch Police Department policies and associated departmental funding. In addition, there is a feeling of a lack of accountability by the Antioch Police Department, including the administration of grievances pertaining to the excessive use of force, racial and/or ethnic profiling and police misconduct.

Whether or not these perceptions are correct, they are real within various communities of Antioch. Thus, with input from the community, these perceptions need to be examined and when found valid, addressed to the satisfaction of the Antioch citizenry.”

Nichole Gardener wrote about a cleanup of a homeless encampment. “I witnessed the city spending $50,000…defund the Antioch Police Department and start funding services for the homeless on our streets.”

“The police are a stain on our city. People feel unsafe by their presence. Antioch spends over 60% of the budget on police. (which is false) Redirecting at least 50% of the police budget to other programs would give our children a city we can be proud of,” read another letter.

Antioch School Board Trustee Mary Rocha wrote, “I do not support the ad hoc committee. It is a conflict of interest if council members sit if it the committee is established.”

Frank Sterling wrote of his own attack by APD in which he passed out. “When I awoke, I was kicked in the face. After two years I was cleared.”

Retired Antioch Police Chief Allan Cantando wrote, “I have to question the motives of councilmember Thorpe in calling for an ad-hoc committee especially as it comes on the heels of Mr. Thorpe sending out a press release regarding APD practices that he knew contained incorrect information. What was your motive in misleading the citizens of Antioch then Mr. Thorpe, and what is it now? It appears that Mr. Thorpe is planting those proverbial weeds in his backyard, just so he can pull them and appear to be a hero.

This is the epitome of political grandstanding and a disservice to the community you are paid to serve. If the city council decides to move forward with this, it should not be an ad-hoc committee, but rather a conversation with our community. Complete a community survey with our residents and then have a community discussion with our residents about the things Antioch police are doing well as well as the things they can improve upon. Once again, Councilman Thorpe, you continue to show that you are nothing more than an opportunist intent on dividing the City of Antioch.”

Jim Becker supporting the formation of an ad hoc committee wrote, “I would support forming it with transparency.”

“Funding police will only increase crime,” another member of the public wrote.

“I do stand with the blue. Without them this city would be hell,” read another letter.

Velma Wilson wrote, “I’m against forming an ad hoc committee…it undermines the leadership of Chief Brooks. T is a black man who has black sons and deals with the same issues as the black community. Let’s not be divisive…that will lead to bitterness in our community. No to the ad hoc committee and yes to a community forum.”

“Every person of color is affected by this system. We need change in this city,” wrote another resident.

The final comment read was by someone named Amber who wrote, “The money taken from the APD budget can be used for more important funds.”

Bill Bunting was on the Zoom call and wanted to know what do police officers have to know to be hired.

However, City Attorney Thomas Smith explained to him, that “Public comment is the time for people to make comment not for Q and A.”

Council Discusses Matter Votes Down Ad Hoc Committee

The council then took up the matter.

“This is obviously a very important topic. I don’t believe we’ve ever had this many comments form the public on a topic,” said Mayor Wright. “I wish we could have allowed three minutes each but that would have taken three times long. There was a lot shared over the seven hours of listening. We heard from both sides. The common thread was that we want to have a discussion. It’s important we have a conversation. Tonight, we’re not talking about what reforms that need to take place. Just what

Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts was called on, first and attempted to make a motion, but it was disallowed.

“If this is a conversation you want to hold, what is the vehicle you want to use?” Attorney Smith asked. “There is an option of a study session. The ad hoc is outside of the Brown Act, so, there isn’t a public notice required. If the council decides to use that” they would have to decide “who are the members, who would sit on it. It could go on as long as nine months, or even a year. The council would decide the scope of what to be discussed.”

“The study sessions would be the entire city council with reports from the ad hoc,” he explained. “You could have both. You could also add panelists. There would be checklists for the public to have input. This study session is an idea by Mayor Wright. You’d have the entire public involved in the dialogue. If you decide you don’t want to use the tools listed on the agenda, the mayor could call a special meeting to decide the tools you want to use.”

“I just wanted to thank the community for sharing their views,” Motts continued. “This is an important issue. I see Pittsburg already held a town hall in which the police department and the entire council participated. It’s too important of an issue to not include the entire council. I’d like to make a motion that we hold a town hall or community forum as soon as possible and bring the full council together, the police department and community, rather than doing an ad hoc at this time.”

“This is just a process point…the agenda doesn’t identify a town hall as an option,” Smith said. “What you’re calling for if it includes the council as a whole, you can decide tonight…it’s letting the mayor know, then the mayor can call that special meeting.”

“Are you saying that motion is invalid?” asked Wright.

“If it’s the will of the council, you can call a special meeting at any time, mayor, you have the authority to do that,” Smith stated.

Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock said she seconded the motion and then said, “I’ll ask Joy that you include the Police Crime Prevention Commission handle that as a special study session.”

However, Smith reiterated that the motion was invalid because that option wasn’t on the council’s meeting agenda.

“It’s on here, formation of a police ad hoc committee. If she changes it to a study session with the police commission,” Ogorchock responded.

“I don’t think this is something that can be handled by the Police Crime Commission,” Motts said. “I think it’s something we all need to be involved with.”

Smith said the mayor can call a special meeting at any time without this motion.

“When we discussed the motion… it was some sort of ad hoc committee,” Wright said. “The first and the second is a motion they can’t make?”

“We know there are two members that want to have a meeting such as that, if there is a third, which could be you, you can go ahead and take that into consideration and call a special meeting,” Smith reiterated to the mayor.

Thorpe Reads Prepared Speech

“Normally when someone suggests an ad hoc, the person who suggested it gives their two cents,” Councilman Lamar Thorpe said. “I like what Mayor Tem Motts suggested. But not absent the ad hoc committee. All our meetings were public, but they were workshops.”

He then read a prepared statement.

“I’m somewhat blown away,” he said. “I do want to apologize to Councilwoman Wilson. I’m the one who suggested the ad hoc committee. You had nothing to do with that. So, I’m somewhat blown away by that.”

He then said, “I’m not a politician, I’m a father, a homeowner…”

“How long anyone has lived here does not give their voice any more power than anyone else,” Thorpe stated. “Because I love my city, I’m willing to have difficult conversations. I want to make a difference and serve all the people of Antioch. All the people of Antioch,” he repeated.

“I want to just have a conversation about reform. That doesn’t mean a negative,” he continued.

“I find it ironic that a small group of special interests are fighting to keep this from happening,” he said. “Isn’t that why people are protesting on the streets of our nation, today?”

“Let me be clear, I have not attacked the police department. Why is the police department so above us all we can’t ask questions in a public setting?” he asked.

Thorpe then called for the formation of the ad hoc committee.

Councilwoman Monica Wilson spoke next, saying, “All of us tried really hard to hear everyone. The world is changing and communities all over the world are having these discussions.”

“I’m also amazed at the resistance to have this conversation,” she continued. “I always wanted to begin a dialogue with our community. The desire to have an ad hoc committee is because our city can always do better.”

“For those in our community who feel everything is fine, I want them to recognize there are some in our community who don’t feel the same way,” Wilson said. “When we do have these town halls…show up and make your voices be heard.”

Ogorchock, Wright, Motts Push for Study Sessions With All Council Members Present

Ogorchock then said, “I thank everyone for all their emails and phone calls. There is one common thread…everyone wants their voices heard. All council members want to be heard. An ad hoc committee would only allow two council members. We don’t want just one. We need quarterly meetings. I personally want to see us all sit together, so everybody’s voice gets to be heard.”

“To have 700 citizens share how much they care how important this is, and to have a community to want to be a part of it,” Wright said. “To be on an ad hoc committee is very powerful, to go out and do the research. When I wasn’t on an ad hoc committee I didn’t get all the information. Everybody in their own way, everyone of these five council members have let me know they want to be on this ad hoc committee.”

“To be honest, this is too big, too important for our community,” he continued. “What I see is a series of forums…but it would be inclusive of everyone on the council. That’s how big this moment is. Let’s do something that would include all of us to have this conversation. This is a bigger moment, not that ad hoc committees aren’t good and can do a lot of research.”

“We tried to do that before with the cannabis, but it didn’t work, no one showed up. It was too formal for people,” Thorpe said. “I think it limits folks’ participation.”

“When we tried cannabis, we tried to get people to make comments, no one did,” Wright said. “But we had 700 people participate. If we don’t get anyone to participate, we can then go to the ad hoc committee.”

Thorpe then made the motion to create the police reform ad hoc committee. Wilson seconded his motion.

“I just think it’s too big to have an ad hoc committee,” said Wright.

“I was encouraged what Pittsburg was able to pull off,” Motts said.

“What did they do?” asked Thorpe. “They had a meeting and looked at their budget. They didn’t make any change to their police. They didn’t do anything.”

“That’s what I read,” Motts said. “Nevertheless, I do have faith we as a council can handle it. The community has expressed themselves like never before. I can’t see moving forward without their participation and have everyone at the table. I’d really like to try this first and come together as a community.”

The motion failed on a vote with Ogorchock, Motts and Wright voting no.

“Now that we’re talking about an open forum, I really don’t want to wait on that,” Ogorchock said.

“If we look at the next Tuesday, as a fifth Tuesday, we could have our first session,” Wright said. “We really need to have a conversation…what our series of panelists we want to hear. Who should be there?”

“Faith leaders, NAACP,” suggested Ogorchock.

“Let’s make sure it’s a broad group of people,” Wilson stated.

“It’s a series,” Wright explained.

“I think police reform advocates, the 8 Can’t Wait, what are the changes they really want to see,” one of the council members said.

“Crime commissioners,” added Ogorchock.

“I think the Police Crime Prevention Commissioners should be added to it,” Wright agreed.

“We need to hear from the chief, what changes are already being made,” Wright said. “At some point we need to hear from the community, what are our blind spots.”

“I’d like to hear from members of our community who have had issues with the police,” he added. “Maybe an hour for the chief, first. Then members of the community.”

“The sooner, the better, we’re wanting to hear what everyone wants to say,” said Ogorchock.

“So, Thomas I’m going to look to you, if this is what the majority wants to do,” Wright then said wrapping up the discussion.

“Yes. I think you have substantial direction from the council for you to call a special meeting,” City Attorney Smith said. “At the end of that meeting you can have a time for council to discuss items moving forward.”

“I just want to thank everyone for their comments,” Ogorchock reiterated to conclude the meeting. “We want all those 700, there.”

Police Crime Prevention Commission Chairman questions need, accuses Thorpe of playing politics

By Allen Payton

The Antioch City Council will hold a special meeting Tuesday night, June 16, 2020 to discuss and consider forming a Police Reform Ad Hoc Committee. It’s being done at the request of Councilman Lamar Thorpe who stated his desire to place the matter on a future council meeting agenda, at the end of this past Tuesday night’s regular council meeting. 

However, Police Crime Prevention Commission Chair Sandra White, in a comment on Thorpe’s personal Facebook page, questioned the need for it.

“Lamar as the Chairman of the Crime Commission in Antioch, why is Council interested in forming a new committee to discuss Police Reform?” she asked. “I was not aware our police department needed to be reformed? Or, is the council using the situation that happened to Mr. Floyd as a way to gain political support; as you all are trying to get re-elected?”

“Yes, I believe it is shameful to use a highly sensitive matter for political purposes,” White continued. “Please get off the wagon! Our police department has done an outstanding job over the years with limited resources. When you talk about police reform most people’s perceptions are police practices and/or policies are not working in the community. It will be a mistake to create that perception of the Antioch Police department.”

“Feel free to follow up with me directly to discuss further,” she concluded.

However, her comment has been deleted. When reached for comment Thorpe wrote in a text about White and her comment, “She is not my friend on FB (Facebook). I delete all comments from people who are not my friends on FB. She’s more than welcome to comment on my public profile.”

Asked if his post was still on his personal page and why not use the Police Crime Prevention Commission instead of forming a council ad hoc committee, Thorpe did not respond.

Earlier this week, while speaking with the Herald about the eight reform recommendations he offered on Monday as part of the national 8 Can’t Wait campaign, and about what Antioch Police Chief T Brooks shared that the department was already implementing five of them and didn’t recommend implementing the other three, Thorpe said, “I want all eight.”

According to the staff report on the single item agenda, the council it is recommended they “Discuss and consider formation of a Police Reform Ad Hoc Committee including whether it shall review existing policies, rules, practices, customs, and general orders of the Antioch Police Department and make recommendations including but not limited to:

A. Prevention of excessive use of force by police officers against members of the public, including banning police from using carotid artery restraints and chokeholds;

B. Elimination of military equipment from the police department (“Demilitarization”);

C. Required use of conflict de-escalation approaches by all sworn officers when interacting with the public;

D. Increased police accountability, including the process for receipt and review of public complaints against the police for excessive use of force, racial and/or ethnic profiling, and other police misconduct;

E. Improvement of police officer candidate recruitment, screening, training and hiring practices including an analysis of policies concerning implicit bias, candidate diversity and candidate background checks; and

F. Police department budget appropriations.

2) Confirm the appointment of two (2) members for the Police Reform Ad Hoc Committee, if the ad hoc committee is desired;

3) Confirm the duration of the Police Reform Ad Hoc Committee, if the ad hoc committee is desired;

4) Adopt the resolution to form the Police Reform Ad Hoc Committee, if the ad hoc committee is desired; and

5) Determine whether to hold study sessions to discuss and consider the findings and recommendations of the Police Reform Ad Hoc Committee and, if so, when to schedule the study sessions.”

The council meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. and can be viewed on Comcast Cable Channel 24 or via livestream on the city’s website. Use the form on that same page to submit a comment either for general public comments on topics not on the agenda or on the one agenda item, to be read during the meeting. Comments are limited to 350 words.

Will cost city $100,000; could face pre- and post-election legal challenges due to new legislation possibly making the initiative moot and costing city even more.

By Allen Payton

In response to the direction given by a judge in a court case over two initiatives affecting new home development in the Sand Creek Focus Area that the council adopted in 2018, the Antioch City Council voted 5-0 to place the one initiative sponsored by the environmental community on the November 2020 ballot.

That court case resulted in the judge tossing out the council’s adoption of the environmentalist-backed Let Antioch Voters Decide (LAVD) initiative. It also invalidated both the initiative sponsored by Richland Communities, the developer of the 1,100-home project known as The Ranch, as well as their development agreement. In his ruling, the judge also ordered the city council place the LAVD initiative on the ballot. However, the decisions in the lawsuits by adjacent property owners The Zeka Group owners of Zeka Ranch, and the Oak Hill Park Company are still being appealed by the backers of the LAVD initiative. (See related articles here, and here)

According to a previous Herald news report, following a 30-day study by city staff, their report found the initiative limited the total number of housing units to 2,100 in the entire Sand Creek Area. Since the past and current councils had already approved more than 2,300 homes, then no more homes could be built, including the proposed 301-unit, gated senior home community east of Deer Valley Road, known as The Olive Groves on the Albers Ranch property. However, both Seth Adams of Save Mount Diablo and the attorney for Richland said that the intent of each initiative was to only affect property on the west side of Deer Valley Road.

The LAVD initiative will directly impact the proposed Zeka Ranch project (see related article), west of The Ranch project, on the west side of Empire Mine Road, as well as three other properties directly south of Richland property, including Oak Hill’s. Zeka’s proposed number of homes would be reduced from 300 to 400, down to just one home per 80 acres, resulting in just a total of eight homes.

In addition, since the judge’s decisions, new legislation, SB330, was passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Newsom, last year which prevents cities from downzoning land already zoned residential, either by council action or through the initiative process.

Yet, according to Derek Cole, the city’s contract attorney working on matters dealing with the Sand Creek initiative, “cities have mandatory duties whenever proposed ballot measures receive the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot.  In this case, because the ‘9212’ report and approval of the initiative are no longer options, the City can only take action to call an election as to the initiative.  City staff is aware of the SB 330 legislation that took effect this year, but as the Staff Report explains, the City Council cannot assume the role of the courts in deciding any legal issues associated with the measure.  The State Supreme Court made very clear in a 2017 decision that the duty to call an election on an initiative is mandatory, even when an initiative’s legality is questioned.”

“The council could adopt an argument against the initiative,” added City Attorney Thomas Smith.

During public comments Joanna Garaventa, with the East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, spoke in favor of the initiative. She submitted a letter to the council, but when speaking it was difficult to understand her for the purpose of adding her comments to this report.

Andrew Bassak, an attorney with Hanson Bridgett, representing The Zeka Group, opposed the placement of the initiative on the ballot as “it would negatively affect the development that’s been planned for the past 30 years.”

He referred to SB330, the new residential development law.

“The city lacks authority to place the initiative on the ballot…under the California Elections Code. That passed years ago,” Bassak explained. “There is no authority under the stayed Superior Court ruling. That judgement is currently subject to appeal, by one of the proponents of the initiative. Save Mt. Diablo wants to have its cake and eat it, too.”

“The cost of putting it on the ballot will be over $100,000,” he stated. “Placing it on the ballot will result in more litigation” both before…and after the November election. Those litigations could easily double the $100,000 amount. This is just squandering resources that could be spent elsewhere. The city should wait until the court of appeals decision is over.”

Bassak submitted a letter to the mayor and council before the meeting. In it he wrote, “the Initiative is fundamentally flawed and, if placed on the ballot, will be subject to avoidable costly pre-election litigation.” 06-09-20 Zeka Group Attorney Letter to Antioch re LAVD Initiative

Seth Adams, the Land Conservation Director for Save Mt. Diablo, which sponsored the LAVD initiative said, “Please move forward with placing our initiative on the ballot and please formally endorse the initiative.”

“Over 9,000 citizens signed the petition to place the initiative on the ballot,” he continued. “The courts said to place the initiative on the ballot. It did not invalidate the initiative.”

“Our attorneys have provided information to the city that explains why they can place the initiative on the ballot,” Adams added. Emails from Save Mt. Diablo’s attorney to City of Antioch re LAVD Initiative

All the other thirteen public comments were in favor of placing the initiative on the ballot.

Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock then asked about how SB 330 affected the initiative.

“SB330 is legislation…that became effective in January of this year and is retroactive two years,” Smith said. “Under the new regulation any affected city is precluded from adopting policy…of lesser standard. It is preventing the downzoning of land, from residential to something that would not allow development.”

“It is one of the factors that would have to be taken into consideration if the initiative passed,” he continued. “However, at this time, the council can move forward.”

“There may be a pre-election challenge or a post-election challenge,” Smith added. “SB330 could affect it in determining if the initiative is valid.”

“Not only did 9,000 of our citizens sign petitions to place this on the ballot, but the courts directed the council to place it on the ballot,” said Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts. “I believe it’s an environmentally sensitive, efficient development. So, I am in favor of moving the initiative forward and placing it on the November ballot.”

Ogorchock then moved to place the initiative on the ballot. Councilwoman Monica Wilson seconded the motion.

Smith then asked if the two actions could be separated, with the council deciding if they want to include a ballot argument against the measure.

Ogorchock then shortened her motion to not include a ballot argument.

Thorpe then asked staff to come back with something at a future council meeting, for council to decide whether or not to endorse or oppose the initiative.

However, the council can only submit an argument against the initiative, Smith explained.

Ogorchock and Wilson withdrew their motion and Ogorchock made a new motion and Thorpe seconded it.

“Do we want to make an argument against the initiative?” she asked. Wilson, Thorpe and Motts all said “no”.

“I just need you to make a motion that you do not want to make an argument against the initiative,” Smith explained.

Ogorchock then made a friendly amendment to her own motion that the council will not include an argument against the initiative. Thorpe accepted the amendment to the motion.

That motion passed on a 5-0 vote, that the council will not include a ballot argument against the initiative.

Then Ogorchock returned to her original motion to place the initiative on the November ballot. It was seconded by Wilson and the motion also passed 5-0.

Efforts to reach Seth Adams and city staff to obtain a copy of the letter sent to the City from Save Mt. Diablo’s attorney before the meeting, were unsuccessful prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Thorpe seeks six of eight immediate policy reforms, claims only two have already been implemented

By Allen Payton

In response to the death of George Floyd at the hands of four former Minneapolis Police Officers, and the ensuing protests in Antioch and throughout the country, Antioch Councilman Lamar Thorpe has jumped on the bandwagon of a nationwide effort led by the Obama Foundation, to limit police interactions with suspected criminals by proposing a list of reforms for the Antioch Police Department he wants the rest of the council to consider.

In a press release he issued on Monday, Thorpe said he “fully endorses the enactment of eight specific policy recommendations that are part of the national 8 Can’t Wait Campaign” and claims “two of eight recommendations are policy in Antioch.”

Thorpe is calling on Antioch Chief of Police to enact the remaining six.

“Something is happening with the consciousness of America. People all over the country and here in Antioch are saying ‘enough is enough,’ and they expect change,” Thorpe said. “After 15 days of sustained protest, demonstrations and civil unrest, it’s time to take action, before one more senseless killing takes place. Let’s think globally and act locally.”

The most controversial of the remaining six recommendations is the banning of chokeholds and strangleholds, including a technique Antioch police use called the carotid restraint, which involves placing pressure on a person’s neck to restrict blood flow. In an independent autopsy, medical examiners determined that pressure placed on Floyd’s carotid artery impeded blood flow to his brain and contributed to his death.

More than a dozen California cities have banned carotid restraints following Floyd’s murder. Assembly Bill 1196, introduced last week by state Assemblyman Mike Gipson, D-Carson, would make the carotid restraint illegal in California. Thorpe is calling on Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign the bill.

Following are the eight policy recommendations:

1. Ban police use of chokeholds and strangleholds, including the carotid restraint
2. Require officers to de-escalate situations whenever possible
3. Require officers to exhaust all options before shooting, including less lethal force
4. Ban officers from shooting at moving vehicles
5. Establish a use of force continuum that restricts using the most severe force to most extreme situations
6. Require comprehensive reporting for each time an officer fires or points their weapon at someone
7. Require verbal warnings before using deadly force (already an Antioch policy)
8. Require officers to intervene to stop excessive force by other officers (already an Antioch policy)

According to the Obama.org website, “More than 1,000 people are killed by police every year in America, and Black people are three times more likely to be killed than White people.” That’s because, as a CNBC article on police violence in America reports, “according to Mapping Police Violence, one research group…Black people accounted for 24% of those killed, despite making up only about 13% of the population.” But the article also reports that, “no comprehensive official database exists for tracking police violence, though there have been efforts at the federal level to create one.”

That article further reports, “the data from Mapping Police Violence is sourced from three databases — killedbypolice.net, fatalencounters.org and the U.S. Police Shootings Database — as well as original research focused on social media, obituaries, criminal records databases, police reports and other sources, according to the group.”

At the Tuesday, June 9, 2020 Antioch Council meeting, Councilmember Thorpe will call for the formation of a City Council Ad-Hoc Committee on Police Reforms to be composed of council members, legal advisers, police leaders, police union representatives and community advocates. The role of the committee will be to examine potential long-term reforms in the following areas:

1. Demilitarize our local police
2. Increase police accountability
3. Improve police hiring practices
4. Excessive use of force
5. Budget appropriations

“While it’s important for our city to take immediate preventative steps, such as banning use of carotid restraints, creating successful police reforms will require the involvement of the entire community,” Thorpe said. “The ad-hoc committee approach is one of the best tools we have as city councilmembers to create lasting policy change that works.”

Additionally, he has signed the Obama.org’s “My Brother’s Keeper Alliance Pledge”, to have Antioch become an “MBK Community” which asks local officials to:

1. Review the police use of force policies in my community
2. Engage my community by including a diverse range of input, experiences, and stories in our review
3. Report the findings of our review to my community and seek feedback within 90 days of signing this pledge
4. Reform my community’s police use of force policies based on findings

When asked for his thoughts on Thorpe’s proposed reforms, Antioch Police Chief T Brooks responded, “I look forward to hearing the discussion between Councilman Thorpe and the rest of the city council on this proposal.  I am especially interested in what specific reforms they believe are necessary at the Antioch Police Department.”

A question to the chief asking if there any of the other six reforms on the proposed list have been implemented by the Antioch Police Department went unanswered prior to publication time.

The online Antioch City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. and can be viewed on Comcast Local Cable Channel 24 or via livestream on the city’s website at www.antiochca.gov/government/city-council-meetings/live/.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.