Futile protest outside school district building as board members met elsewhere Thursday night

“The money we spend right now for private security…the cost for six SRO’s is pretty much what we spend already (for private security)” – Trustee Gary Hack

Details will be worked out by Sept. 23 deadline on the school district-city Memorandum of Understanding

By Allen Payton

During their continued meeting that was interrupted twice by protesters, Wednesday night, the Antioch School Board voted 3-2 to approve spending $378,000 per year over the next three years to match the city’s share of the federal grant for six School Resource Officers (SRO’s). The action will place one sworn Antioch Police Officer on each of three middle schools and three high schools in the district. As expected, Trustees Crystal Sawyer-White and Ellie Householder cast the dissenting votes, because both had previously made public comments at last week’s city council meeting against the SRO’s. The City had until Sunday, August 9 to accept the $750,000 three-year grant. (See meeting video on YouTube) (See related article)

Although protesters again showed up at the AUSD office building, pounding on the walls and doors, according to one witness, their effort was futile as the board members and district staff were not there for the online meeting, Thursday night, according to Board President Diane Gibson-Gray.

Public Comments Continued

Superintendent Stephanie Anello continued reading public comments submitted for the meeting.

“I’m a recent AUSD graduate of the Class of 2020,” wrote one member of the public I am asking you to vote no on the six school resource officers. Listen to us who will be most affected. SRO’s mainly hurt black and brown kids.

Jerelle Wilkinson, whose wife is a teacher in a Title I school, urged the board vote no on spending money on SRO’s. He incorrectly claimed the City of Antioch spends 62% of the city budget on police. (The police budget is 62% of the General Fund which makes up 44% of the city budget. Police spending is actually only 27.3% of the overall city budget).

As a 31-year employee of the Antioch school district I am full in support of the SRO’s. Please hear our need for safer school sites,” wrote a staff member.

Janet Wesenhagen, a staff member at Antioch High School, wrote in favor of the SRO’s. “Often times we get complaints of police response times. Having a police officer on campus will solve that.” She wrote that having officers on campus makes parents feel safe about sending their kids to school. “If the campuses are not safe will anyone really apply for AUSD? I’m here to shout out from the rooftop I am in favor of placing SRO’s on the campuses.”

Destiny Parker-Roles wrote in favor of the SRO’s. “Many are just saying what the alumni page are saying. Those who do have children in AUSD schools are urging you to vote yes, tonight.”

“I have to go back to school and want to be safe,” a student wrote. “Please vote yes.”

Quincy Plumber wrote, “I was picking up my student the night the shooting happened at Deer Valley. It was chaos. Please vote yes.”

“Please vote for our children, not for a political agenda,” wrote another parent.

“There mere presence was largely intimidating,” a recent graduate wrote against the SRO’s. “

Robert Young, an AUSD staff member wrote, “I would urge the board to ask several questions of where will the officers be stationed? How far off campus will their authority extend?”

A parent of an incoming high school freshman wrote, “Having an SRO present…may deter bad behavior that often causes a bad distraction. At a time when budgets are being cut I see it as a privilege of being offered this grant.”

Bernice Gutierrez wrote, “Videos show how SRO’s have aggressively hurt students when handcuffing them.”

Ellie Householder has an agenda that calls for defunding the police and calling city council members

“I know firsthand having police on campus makes a difference. I now have two kids in middle school. I can’t believe we don’t have cops on campuses,” wrote another member of the public.

Teresa Ward, a former Antioch High School student from 2003 to 2008 wrote of her experience with an SRO and getting a year of probation for a fight. “The cops never tried to create a relationship with students.”

Jamella Jackson Walker has students in AUSD schools wrote in favor of the SRO’s and the good experience her children had with police officers on their campuses.

“I wonder what does Householder want to be when she grows up? I just read she thinks officers protect students at sporting events but doesn’t think they can protect students for six or seven hours a day,” another member of the public wrote and supported the SRO’s.

“These students aren’t animals they just get treated that way. Do your research. We need counselors, not cops. Wake up and vote no,” wrote another person.

“Householder grandstanded on the Jonathan Parker homicide. It is clear she does not take the family’s concerns seriously,” wrote another member of the public.

Megan Watson, a long-time resident of Antioch wrote against hiring the SRO’s. I graduated from Deer Valley High School 10 years ago and nothing has changed. Instead of being met with violence from these SRO’s…work toward hiring more counselors.”

“People get discouraged from coming to school with so much police presence,” another student wrote.

“Please bring back SRO’s to our schools,” wrote another member of the public.

“Please protect our students,” wrote another. “I’ve heard some AUSD trustees calling the SRO’s ‘Trump cops.’” They asked the school board members to keep politics out of their decision.

Rachel Deit wrote, “the last thing we need on AUSD campuses are police. This is not how we should be spending our money.”

“It is terrible to think the district would prioritize money for police on campuses. Students should not be perceived as criminals,” wrote another person.

Stephanie wrote, “It’s time to put students first. SRO’s don’t make students safe.”

“It’s a complete denial of the Black Lives Matter movement,” wrote another member of the public against the SRO’s.  We see where our school board members’ priorities lie.”

“A lot has happened since (the shooting of Jonathan Parker),” wrote another. “We are in the midst of a civil rights wave in which people of color say police don’t make them feel safe. We need to listen to each other. Bringing the police into the schools full-time is like dropping a bomb in your house because of a rat”

“All of you encouraged this, that’s why I’m confused about some of you making comments on social media and at the council meeting against the grant,” wrote another. “We need good people on our campus to keep students safe.”

Tony simply wrote, “No more policing.”

Celestine Press, a staff member, wrote in favor of the COPS grant for the SRO. “That’s what we’ve been asking for. I attended several meetings in which parents and even two school board members demanded this. My son is a student athlete said, ‘maybe it will make kids think twice before starting a fight. I bet Deer Valley would feel like a more peaceful place.’”

“The school to prison pipeline was not mentioned by anyone when people were talking about safety earlier this year,” wrote another member of the public.

“Shame on you, Trustee Householder for criticizing the district for not having enough safety when Jonathan Parker was shot, then you changed your position for political gain,” wrote another.

Another wrote about how the hiring of SRO’s goes against the Black Lives Matter movement.

Another member of the public wrote about how students couldn’t trust Antioch Police due to the hiring of Officer Michael Mellone who shot and killed a homeless man in San Francisco in 2016 before being hired by the Antioch Police Department, again, last year.

Fabby Camacho wrote against placing police officers on AUSD campuses.

Natalie Gutierrez wrote, “wanting to put SRO’s in school campuses is a frightening idea.”

“As a secondary educator in the Bay Area I’ve been able to work with teams of SRO’s,” wrote another in support of the SRO’s. “SRO’s help support the climate” on a campus. “Building positive relationships with students…at sporting events and dances…creates a safe place for children to learn.”

Gretchen Tofflemeir wrote, “Students need counselors not police on school campuses. Where are all these matching funds coming from? Antioch School Board do the right thing.”

Edgar Romero, “I go to AHS and I’m all in support of SRO’s. Students won’t like it but they will think twice before bullying other students.”

“I can’t imagine having an armed officer of the law on campuses,” another wrote. “Hire three officers at the high schools. But don’t place them at the middle schools. These are children who do stupid stuff.”

“I grew up in Antioch and I teach in Antioch and someday my children will attend school,” wrote another. “The officers had no positive impact on me. It served as a vehicle for me to think I want to a dangerous and terrible school. What my students need now is access to more support staff.”

Jennifer Johnson wrote, “Please vote yes. It wasn’t long ago that some board members were calling for more police officers on campus. Now they’re against them.”

“Police presence on campuses present more harm than protection,” wrote another.

“Ellie and Crystal, I wish you all would stop being so divisive,” wrote Velma Wilson. “Ellie you were at the meeting where the Chief talked about this grant and you were all for it.”

“Please keep our students safe by denying this grant,” wrote another member of the public. “Many black and brown youth…should not see their abusers when they show up on school campuses.”

Lucille Meinhardt wrote, “School districts money should go to counselors.”

“I was appalled when I learned that there were no officers on school campuses,” wrote another.

“AUSD has counselors but not SRO’s. Antioch…should have both,” wrote another member of the public.

Antonio Hernandez, school board candidate, wrote against the SRO’s. “Cops on school campuses are not an effective solution. Academic achievement is a much better indicator of school safety. We will have to spend over $3 million for this grant.”

Patricia Granados wrote, “How confident are you all having police officers on campus will benefit students? Bridge those gaps but not by hiring police officers for school campuses.”

“Police officers can’t be the only response we offer to trouble students,” wrote another. “Our students need support and compassion. Why does a kid need to end up in jail before seeing a mental health counselor? We also need to put the responsibility…on our teachers. I urge you to think more creatively.”

Sandy Rogers, President of the Deer Valley PTO wrote in favor the SRO’s. “We should be working together to be improving our schools and our city.”

Laura Young wrote about the district receiving a grant for 10 counselors. “To this day I remember our SRO, Dan Sweeney,” when she attended Antioch schools.

Board Members Deliberate, Approve Six SRO’s

Chief T Brooks was on the line and available to answer questions of the board members.

Trustee Mary Rocha spoke first and was ready to make a motion, but Sawyer-White wanted to discuss the matter, first and Gibson-Gray allowed it.

“As the only African American on the school board, this is unbelievable we wouldn’t want to discuss this,” Sawyer-White said. “Number one, we’re in a pandemic, why the urgency? Will this be put on hold, Chief Brooks?”

“No. This grant has a deadline by August 9th,” Brooks responded.

“If we’re still distance learning where will these officers be?” Sawyer-White asked.

“That is something we have to discuss. Even with distant learning teachers and staff will still be having contact with students. So, if there’s some kind of crime or sexual activity…the officer can respond to their house and respond to the situation,” Brooks explained.

Sawyer-White then spoke of “an alternative safety plan” from the Black Organizing Project in Oakland Unified School District.

“Is there a charge for their services?” asked Board President Gibson-Gray.

“I’m not aware of it,” said Sawyer-White.

But, Gibson-Gray said it could not be discussed further since the idea was not on the agenda.

“Will these SRO’s have the authority to arrest students in the classroom?” Sawyer-White asked.

“All sworn officers in California have the authority to make arrests,” said Brooks.

“I’m concerned we’re not hiring parents on school campuses of people of color…who do not have a gun,” Sawyer-White then said.

“I kept a tally of the speakers of the documents that were read. The yesses were 43, the noes were 32, so we’re split,” said Trustee Gary Hack. “I assume that accepting SRO’s on campus is not addressing all of it. But it is an answer. The money we spend right now for private security…the cost for six SRO’s is pretty much what we spend already.”

Trustee Ellie Householder wrote, “I think the thing that’s weighing on my heart…is what happened, yesterday and what’s happening, I assume at the district office, and that’s youth standing up and asking us to vote no on SRO’s. It goes to show how deeply concerning having police on our campuses is. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to be a young person watching videos of officers brutalizing people then seeing armed officers walking through the halls between classes.”

The evidence given by Superintendent Anello is that Brentwood have SRO’s and we used to have them. I haven’t seen…how these SRO’s are going to directly impact the students.

There was a significant decrease

There is not a single documented case of an SRO preventing a school shooting,” she said. “The last thing I want to say, ideology aside, philosophy…we just cut $1.8 million in classified staff. Then to revert around and hire…it’s disrespectful to our classified staff. We need a comprehensive safety plan…like restorative justice. Unequivocally, our Antioch Police need to be part of that plan. We need cops at after school events, undoubtedly. But not patrolling the

Sawyer-White then thanked for Chief Brooks for attending and suggested having events aside from school events, like dinners on Saturday nights. We need YMCA’s we need

Rocha then asked, “Everyone was yelling at us that it was a safety issue. At this time, we have the opportunity to have a federal grant that was processed back in February. We already are spending $250,000 for private security. We don’t we go for the six and then moved approval.”

Gibson-Gray seconded the motion.

Sawyer-White then said, “Right now we don’t have a homeless liaison.”

Gibson-Gray then interrupted her and said “:e have a motion on the floor.”

Householder asked Rocha to clarify her motion.

“My motion was to approve the SRO grant…and to accept all six SRO’s,” Rocha responded.

Gibson-Gray then seconded it, again.

“We cannot be collaborative. This is the only thing on the agenda. I don’t know why you don’t want to discuss it, Trustee Rocha”

“I still want to discuss it,” Gibson-Gray said.

“But she doesn’t want to discuss it,” Sawyer-White responded.

“Point of order. It says on the agenda, the district and city would negotiate an MOU. Can the motion be just to approve the SRO’s?” Householder asked.

“I did send in questions to the superintendent and Chief Brooks and asked them not to answer, but answer us all at once,” Gibson-Gray said.

“I keep hearing the $1.8 million in cuts” then spoke of the governor’s May revise. “Can you tell us, how that’s going?” she asked of Anello.

Assistant Superintendent Jessica Romeo responded instead saying, “since the action was taken by the board on the classified layoffs there have been changes. It absolutely did impact extra employees. Six instructional assistants have had their layoff notices rescinded. We created three new registrar employees. Two of our impacted employees have been placed in those positions. Finally, as far as a rescind, we did rescind the print shop and records. We have rescinded about $500,000. We have also placed about 20 individuals into positions in the district. We have two individuals…who chose to retire, and we have three individuals who chose to continue with the layoffs. We are still working with some individuals…to see if sites will use their funds differently. I’d like to say six of seven, but that changes every day.”

Householder then asked, “Since we paid for STM, the private security…from our supplementary concentration grant funding…since we’re talking instead of entering a separate contract with APD, will we be using” the same funds?

“It does not necessarily have to come from the same funding source,” Romeo responded.

Gibson-Gray then asked about how many guidance counselors saying, “We currently have 31 counselors.”

“Yes. With the 14 mental clinicians, that brings us to 45,” Anello said.

“Are these mental health specialists,

“They have at least a master’s degree in social work or marriage and family counseling, etc.,” Anello responded.

Gibson-Gray then asked about how many homeless students are in the district.

“I don’t see how going over blow by blow the homeless population is pertinent to the agenda item,” Householder said.

“It is a question I heard,” Gibson-Gray stated. “How many of our students need permanent shelter.”

“We have 23 students who are currently, temporarily unsheltered,” Anello stated.

Gibson-Gray then asked Chief Brooks about community policing model and what the SRO’s would be doing with students.

“Community engagement…that will be included on our school campuses,” he responded. “Play sports with them, hang out with them during lunch. All the feedback I’ve received back from our students, our parents and even our officers has been extremely positive. The vast majority of the work of our officers on campuses will be building relationships. Be able to resolve conflict…with the hopes of encouraging young men and women…to see that the people who wear these uniforms are just human beings and have feelings.”

“Can you tell me how the hiring works…if we approve the grant,” Gibson-Gray asked.

“The school resource officers will be officers we already have on the source, they will have to apply for the program,” Brooks responded.

“Will someone from the district be involved in the hiring process, perhaps even a student?” Householder asked.

“There is the possibility of getting people from the school district and even the possibility of having students involved in the process,” stated Brooks.

“How long will it take…to get into the schools from today?” Gibson-Gray asked.

“If we choose all six, my hope is to have three this school year and three the following school year,” Brooks explained. “We generally don’t hire in clumps of people So, as officers are brought on to the force and they complete their field training, we can fill that position for the officer who becomes an SRO.”

Gibson-Gray then asked about the impacts on the SRO program of vacancies in the police department.

“I think we can keep up with attrition without impacting the school resource officers. Once we assign someone to the SRO that’s what they’ll be assigned to unless something extreme happens,” said Brooks.

“Will you be willing to bill the district quarterly, not in advance?” asked Gibson-Gray.

“That is a discussion that would have to involve the city manager and the city finance director,” Brooks responded.

“If this isn’t working for us, can we stop the grant?” Gibson-Gray then asked.

“We can ask for a modification,” Brooks explained. “That would have to be approved by the DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice).”

“I feel if we decline the grant, as the City of Antioch tries to go for more COPS grants, I don’t think it looks good for us,” Gibson-Gray stated. She then asked for a six-month review.

“There’s a stipulation in the grant that a semi-annual report is required,” Brooks explained.

Sawyer-White then said, “My suggestion is that the students want to be inclusive. Would the board be open to a student safety task force…working together with the youth to be inclusive?”

“Yes, of course we’d be willing to survey the youth,” said Anello.

“Not to survey, but to actually establish a task force,” Sawyer-White responded.

“That’s something that can be discussed,” Gibson-Gray said.

“The MOU has to be completed no later than September 23,” Brooks stated.

“So, we have some time,” Gibson-Gray said.

She then called for the vote with Hack, Rocha and Gibson-Gray voting in favor of the grant and district expenditure for the six SRO’s and Sawyer-White and Householder voting against.

Entered district headquarters building during public comments, police had to be called, pounded on doors; damaged building; almost knocked down oldest member of the board; board president injured – a felony against an elected official

Meeting postponed to Thursday night at 7:00 p.m.

By Allen Payton

The Antioch School Board special meeting to vote on funding up to six school resource officers placing sworn Antioch Police officers on Antioch middle and high school campuses in the district, was interrupted twice by protesters. First, about 48 minutes into the meeting they were pounding on the walls and doors, then again, a short while later. (See meeting video on YouTube.) (See video of protest)

The protesters oppose the placing of police officers on Antioch school campuses and wrote in chalk on the sidewalk in front of the district office building “No SRO’s” and “Counselors”. The deadline for the City of Antioch to accept and receive the $750,000 three-year grant is this Sunday, August 9. (See related article) NOTE: None of the protesters were still on site when this reporter arrived.

Before the meeting, Trustee Mary Rocha said she was almost pushed to the ground as she walked into the building through the employee entrance on 6th Street, through the lunchroom. But someone grabbed her arm to keep her from falling. Board President Diane Gibson-Gray injured her arm on the door because the protesters wouldn’t let her in and she was moving quickly past a protester and district employee.

According to AUSD staff, the protesters held on to the door and wouldn’t allow it to be closed. An AUSD employee tried the close the door but some of the 30 to 40 protesters (according to district staff and police estimates) were holding it and forced their way in.

“They damaged the building,” Superintendent Stephanie Anello said. “They dumped everything out of the fridge” including all the trays full of ice cubes and district employees’ food.

The employee then had to sit in a chair in front of the door from the lunchroom into the lobby to block the protesters from entering the rest of the building and the board room where Gibson-Gray, Rocha, Anello and Trustee Gary Hack held the meeting.

Trustees Crystal Sawyer-White and Ellie Householder participated in the meeting from their homes.

“One of these kids almost knocked me down,” Rocha said after the meeting. “I’m 81 years old. I was trying to get into the meeting. There were piles. Shagoofa (Khan) was right there. We had to shove and shove. This little, short, chunky girl was in front of me. They surrounded us.”

Shagoofa Khan ran unsuccessfully for Antioch School Board in 2018 in a team effort with Householder and the backing of Antioch Councilman Lamar Thorpe. Khan has been participating in several of the protests in Antioch, in the past few months, including the one at City Hall and during the Juneteenth Celebration.

“They came in, they were inside,” Rocha continued after the meeting. “They’re vandalizing the building. They’re right outside the door. I can’t even go home. The police are outside.”

“I’ve been through messes before with teacher strikes, but this is ridiculous,” she exclaimed.

“They blocked my car and after waiting and waiting, officers were trying to persuade the main person,” Board President Diane Gibson-Gray said. “But that wasn’t working. I asked an officer to give me a ride home and I had to go back later to get my car.”

“I didn’t feel threatened, but they weren’t going to let me leave and go home,” she added. “I will be filing a report, tomorrow because I injured my arm when trying to get past them and out the door, which they were blocking. I  hit my arm on the door jam because three or four protesters were blocking the door. When I went through one of the protesters started yelling at an employee, so I looked back. That’s when I banged my arm on the door jam because there was another protester blocking the entry. I was trying to not touch him and get in the door at the same time. Once I got past him, because of the momentum, I hit my arm on the door. There’s a pretty big bruise. It’s their insurance, not mine. There’s always caution when someone is hurt.”

“It is a felony to assault an elected official,” Gibson-Gray added. “

At least seven Antioch Police officers arrived on the scene in six police cars.

But Antioch Police Chief T Brooks, who was participating in the online meeting from home said, “We’re not going to get into a violent confrontation with people over noise at a public meeting. I wish the building was more secure.”

“We don’t want to give them a chance to say we’re harassing them (the protesters),” Rocha said. “We don’t want to touch them. That’s why the police are out there but not doing anything.”

However, officers did have to escort Rocha to her car so she could drive home, in addition to driving Gibson-Gray home.

Meeting Begins

At the beginning of the meeting Superintendent Stephanie Anello presented the agenda item. Then before public comments Trustee Ellie Householder said, “Stephanie referenced a table and I wanted to be clear what she referenced.”

Board President Diane Gibson-Gray responded by reading the details from the staff report about the School Resource Officers in neighboring school districts.

Public Comments

The comments by members of the public, which included current students, school staff, parents were split on whether the school board approve the funding of the COPS grant for the SRO’s. Anello read the submitted comments.

Victoria Adams, President of East County Branch of the NAACP wrote, “The responsibilities of SRO’s are the same as regular police officers. The racial/demographic make-up of the Antioch Police Department does not match the racial/demographic make-up of the students in the Antioch Unified School District. Many of our young people don’t identify with members of the Antioch Police Department.”

She supported police officers at school sporting events and dances, but not on campuses.

Amber McKayla, a senior at Antioch High School wrote, “I’m part Hispanic and partially white, so I haven’t experienced discrimination. The only time police should be on Antioch campuses is in case of emergencies.”

Kyle Montgomery, who has worked for the school district for 13 years opposed police on campus who would be “negatively disproportionately affecting POC (people of color).”

Michelle Pareia, a resident of Antioch for 20 years and former student of AUSD schools opposed police officers on campus.

Kimberly Soriano, a counselor also opposed having the SRO’s on campus.

“Studies have shown the presence of SRO’s actually harms students…leads to declines in graduation rates,” wrote another member of the public.

Nick Culcasi wrote supporting the approval of accepting the grant.

Brandon Risoto wrote, “Will you listen to your community of students or Mayor Sean Wright and Lori Ogorchock who spoke non-stop of their privileged experience from decades ago?” He said 48 hours of training by the SRO’s was inadequate.

Jafar Kalani Bey wrote “SRO’s will be detrimental to the quality of education on campus.”

Mike Moses, a police officer who attended Antioch schools and an AUSD parent wrote, “it was the presence of police on campus that set me on the career path of a police officer. Get SRO’s back in the schools. SRO’s have changed many lives.”

“It would be nice to have more security

Jenny Dunlap, a teacher at Antioch High wrote, “With these SRO’s we can get rid of the private security contract. I support the approval of this measure.”

A parent of two students in Antioch schools wrote in support of SRO’s. “How can we use resource officers to bridge the gap of trust of some of those in the community.”

A recent graduate of an Antioch high school wrote in favor of SRO’s.

Lisa Borelli, whose son is a quarterback at Antioch High wrote “he’s scared to death to walk on campus” and mentioned “constant threats.”

Protesters Break into District Offices Interrupt Meeting

Gibson-Gray then said there would be a recess of the meeting.

“Hey, what’s going on?” Householder asked. “Hello?”

“Hello?” TSawyer-White said.

Gibson-Gray then said, “we’ve had a breach to our building. We have protesters in our building and we have to call police. Please stand by.”

When she returned to the meeting, Gibson-Gray said, “Thank you all for your patience.”

“Wait. This is trustee Householder. I just wanted to see if you could give me a recap,” Householder said.

“The recap is they breached the building,” Gibson-Gray responded. “I don’t know who they are. They were in T-shirts. I didn’t read their T-shirts. They were protesters. I don’t know who they are.”

Public Comments Resume

Victoria Williams wrote, “I’m a recent Deer Valley High School Graduate. I’m urging the board vote no on the SRO’s. SRO’s have historically contributed to the school to prison pipeline of students of color. Antioch youth and residents are speaking up in large numbers…you should listen.”

Courtney Wright wrote in support of the SRO’s. “Just a few months ago…there was a meeting…on safety at our schools,” she wrote. “I’m thankful for the grant the AUSD has received for counselors. We need to take action. Please vote yes for our community and our schools.”

DeAnna Gordon wrote, “Studies across the country have shown SRO’s don’t make schools safer. Students do not need to be policed at school.”

Emily Woodall wrote in opposition to school resource officers. “It’s my distinct opinion…SRO’s will criminalize students of color. Studies have shown those schools with SRO’s have three-and-a-half times more arrests than those schools without them.”

Michael Sagehorn wrote, it’s “an opportunity to increase safety on school campuses. We need more supportive adults on campus, not less.”

Antioch High School Site Safety Coordinator wrote, “I know it’s time to ask for more help. I’m in favor of an SRO in our schools.

Protesters Pound on District Building Doors Interrupt Meeting, Again

Householder then said, “I’m hearing a lot of noise and it’s getting pretty difficult to follow along.”

“The protesters are banging on the building,” Gibson-Gray said then asked Sawyer-White if she was able to hear.

“It sounds like someone’s breathing. They’re banging on the window?” Sawyer-White asked.

“Actually, they’re pounding on the door,” Gibson-Gray said.

Householder then reiterated she was having difficulty hearing. In response, Gibson-Gray then called for a 30-minute recess.

Gibson-Gray returned before 30 minutes and the sound of pounding on the doors could still be heard.

“I’m still hearing a lot of the same noise, though,” said Householder during the roll call of board members.

“I’d like to continue the meeting until tomorrow, if we have a quorum,” Gibson-Gray said. She then asked, “Trustee Sawyer-White, can you make noon?”

“I work,” responded Sawyer-White.

“Can you make 7 p.m.?” Gibson-Gray then asked.

“Yes,” Sawyer-White responded.

Gibson-Gray then asked the rest of the board members if they could also attend the 7:00 p.m. meeting, and they all confirmed.

“The protesters are in our lunchroom. They’re pounding on the door,” she said.

The meeting was adjourned to Thursday night at 7:00 p.m. when the remaining public comments will be read, and the board will deliberate and vote on the matter. It can be viewed on the district’s YouTube channel.

 

By Allen Payton

The Antioch School Board will hold a special meeting tonight, Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss and vote on helping the City of Antioch fund up to six sworn police officers who will serve as School Resource Officers and will work at the middle and high school campuses in the district. The deadline for accepting the grant is August 9, 2020.

The Antioch City Council voted 3-2, last Tuesday night July 28, to accept the $750,000 U.S. Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant funding over three years, with the condition the school board approve 50% in matching funds. Over 100 members of the public, including students in Antioch schools submitted public comments mostly opposed to the placement of police on school campuses. (See related article)

Two school board members, Crystal Sawyer-White and Ellie Householder, both submitted public comments during the council meeting also opposing the use of police officers on Antioch campuses. So, unless either or both change their minds, the decision to approve will be left up to the other three board members. Sawyer-White only wants police at high school sports events.

According to the district staff report, “If approved by AUSD, the City of Antioch will fund the remaining 50% not covered by grant funding. For the past 10 years, the Antioch Unified School District has been one of the only school districts in far East County without School Resources Officers (SROs).

The average cost to AUSD for each SRO is approximately $63,000. If the Board chooses to move forward with funding 50% of the six approved SROs, the cost to AUSD is approximately $378,000 per year for the first three years. Year four of the grant requires both agencies to pay a larger share (an increase of approximately $41,667 per SRO). However, this will be offset by funding that will carry-over from year one as a result of the time it will take to hire and train the officers.

For the past five school years, the District has hired a private security firm with two officers to serve during the school day. The average cost per year for the past five years is approximately $263,000. If the Board accepts the grant this evening, the funds used to contract with the private security firm to hire two officers will, instead, be utilized for six SROs.

Additionally, approximately $100,000 is currently budgeted within the District’s budget for various security costs that can be reallocated to offset the contribution by AUSD, resulting in minimal, if any, additional contribution from the general fund.

The Board can choose to fund 50% of all six officers at a cost of approximately $378,000 per year or can choose fewer officers at the following costs: 2 officers – $126,000; 3 officers – $189,000; 4 officers – $252,000; or 5 officers – $315,000.

Should the Board approve the cost sharing of SROs, District administration and the City would negotiate an MOU which would include, but not be limited to: parent input into hiring/selection of SROs, flexing of schedules to cover key nighttime events such as sports, etc.”

The school board meeting will be livestreamed and can be viewed on the AUSD YouTube channel.

 

By Antonio Hernandez

For years, our community has struggled with providing a safe, supportive learning experience for our students. This has resulted in a decline in enrollment in the Antioch Unified School District, as more parents have opted for private education, inter-district transfers, homeschooling and charter schools.

But when parents opt out of our local public schools, they are not protesting the great teachers at AUSD. They are saying no to a system that continues to overstretch staff resources. Within the last year, AUSD has cut counselors, teacher aids, college and career staff, librarians, custodians, bilingual aids, and much more. Most recently, AUSD cut 26 similar positions (totaling $1.8 million) from its budget.

Now, both the City of Antioch and AUSD are facing a tough question: whether or not to fund over $3 million to place six cops on our school campuses known as student resource officers (SRO). But is it really the right response?

It’s understandable that as a community we may feel that adding police to our schools will make our children safe. But cops on school campuses are not an effective solution, which is why schools throughout our country are moving away from this practice in favor of more holistic solutions.

A recent paper by the Brookings Institution found that increasing investments in SROs does not lead to safer schools. Instead, they found that academic achievement is a much stronger predictor of school safety. Another paper published in Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice found that students felt less safe in the presence of SROs.

Often by the time an SRO is involved in a student’s life, we have already failed them in a million different ways. More than two-thirds of children report experiencing at least one traumatic event by the time they reach the age of 16. Based on a 2018 survey of our students, a full 70 percent of 11th graders in Antioch identified with the statement, “I felt sad and down.” And according to the most recent Census statistics, 24.9 percent of AUSD students — more than 7,000 kids — are living below the poverty line.

It’s not hard to imagine how these factors can lead to trouble at school. Yet school incidents could be prevented with the right resources. For the same cost as the six SROs, we could hire around 20 counselors to staff nearly all of our schools. But our efforts don’t have to end there. By providing quality after-school programs, access to food and shelter, and a supportive community, we can begin to address the true underlying causes of student underachievement issues rather than just the symptoms.

When we invest in SROs over education, not only are we teaching our kids that we see them as violent and in need of policing, but we are ignoring the root of the problem. On the other hand, by addressing the basic needs of our students such as access to food, shelter, and mental health resources, we can dramatically improve not only the safety of the school, but student achievement as well.

By connecting troubled students with a trusted counselor, we can reduce their feelings of hopelessness. Kids could learn to express their anger in healthy ways as well as develop resilience to help them through traumatic events.

Too often, the lack of student resources and support leads to tragedy. How many more students does the community have to mourn before our city leaders can make bold, innovative decisions to address the equity issues at the heart of the challenge with school safety?

Cops are a band-aid solution to under-resourced schools, and a very poor one at that. We must resist the temptation of using our overstretched police department to solve our communities most complex problems, even if it makes us feel better.

Now more than ever, we need to let our leaders know this is not the way we want to solve this problem. Join in this conversation on my facebook page: facebook.com/antonioforausd

Hernandez has taken out Nomination Papers to run for Antioch School Board in District 1 to challenge Board President Diane Gibson-Gray.

 

No one struck by bullets, but pit bull released by one person involved in argument bites arm of another involved party, and “good Samaritan” sprays bear repellant on man fighting with girlfriend

By Allen Payton

Multiple Antioch Police Officers and Animal Control arrived on the scene of a family dispute, gunshots and domestic violence incident in the 300 block of W. 4th Street Monday afternoon about 3:30 p.m.

According to neighbors who heard the gunshots, but didn’t see the incident, they saw two cars speed away from the scene and a car of an uninvolved neighbor was struck by one of the bullets.

According to Antioch Police Corporal Brian Rose, “a disturbance and argument happened among a variety of family members. During the argument, someone, and we’re not sure who, released a pit bull and it bit the arm of one of involved parties.”

“Then, somehow, we don’t know who or how, a gun dropped to the ground according to the involved parties there, and fired off a couple rounds,” he continued. “How or who, that’s still a mystery. We found two shell casings at the scene to confirm. No one was struck. There may have been some kind of struggle over the gun, but no one was forthcoming.”

“One of the involved parties, a male, one of the primary aggressors, was there with his girlfriend – he was having a beef with her family,” Rose explained. “They get into her vehicle and fled the scene. Then, as they were fleeing something happened between them and caused a domestic violence situation. He put his hands on her and it left her face bleeding. They were outside the car on the street and witnesses saw it and reported it.”

“A good Samaritan tried to come to the aid of the female and sprayed bear repellant on the male but, some of it sprayed the female, too. The domestic violence suspect had his own can of pepper spray and tried to spray the good Samaritan but missed,” Rose stated.

“Then one of the domestic violence suspect’s friends came by and picked up the suspect and they left the scene,” he said. “We were provided with a description of the friend’s car. An officer saw a car that matched the description and stopped the car, which was the right one, and was able to detain the domestic violence suspect.”

“However, the female was uncooperative, not wanting to provide any information saying, ‘I don’t know who this guy is and he just jumped into the car,’ trying to protect her boyfriend,” said Rose. “But we were able to find out from family members that he was her boyfriend.”

“We were also able to recover the firearm in the female’s vehicle with the serial number obliterated, filed off which is illegal, but we couldn’t pin it on anyone, because she said it was hers but some people at the scene heard the boyfriend say, after the gun dropped on the ground, ‘grab my gun, grab my gun,’” Rose explained.

“Even though she doesn’t want to be treated like a domestic violence victim, she is, so we weren’t going to arrest her,” he added.

“At the end of the day, we arrested the domestic violence suspect, not because of anything the victim said, but based on what witnesses said, and we seized the gun,” Rose concluded.

Asked about the dog he replied, “Yes, the dog was taken away.”

Site of homeless program praised by Governor Newsom during June 30 press conference at the location

By Pittsburg Police Department

On Thursday, July 30, 2020, Pittsburg officers responded to Motel 6 at 2101 Loveridge Road in Pittsburg, for the report of a kidnapping during which the suspect, “pistol whipped” the female victim with a handgun causing a significant injury, threatened to kill her son, etc. The suspect was positively identified by the victim and Motel 6 cameras. The suspect in the Motel 6 incident was also found to have an active felony warrant for a similar pistol whip incident that occurred in the City of Oakland days prior. Furthermore, the suspect had just recently been released from prison and was on active parole for prior violent felonies convictions.

The motel was the site for a press conference by Governor Gavin Newsom about the state’s Project Roomkey and new Project Homekey programs on June 30. (See related article)  UPDATE: However, according to Contra Costa Health Services spokesperson Kim McCarl, the program does not include the entire motel, and the victim and suspect involved in the incident, which occurred in the other building, were not part of it.

On Friday, July 31, Pittsburg officers were patrolling the area where the suspect was believed to frequent. Officers located the suspect exiting the same vehicle he was driving during the Motel 6 incident. The suspect fled from the vehicle on foot, a perimeter was established and a short time later he was apprehended without incident. The vehicle was searched, and the above pictured firearm was located inside along with multiple high-capacity magazines and ammunition. The suspect was transported to jail on multiple different charges. -P375

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Being held on No Bail Allowed; incident occurred at apartment complex on James Donlon Blvd.

By Sergeant James Stenger #3604, Antioch Police Investigations Bureau

The Antioch Police Department Investigations Bureau has been diligently investigating this case since May 18, 2020, the night 36-year-old Kenneth Lee McClain was shot and killed. Through the investigation it was determined that an argument started over a dice game between McClain and Vallejo resident, 27-year-old Alfonzo Lavell Blake. During the argument Blake shot and killed McClain and shot and injured an intentionally unnamed 23-year-old male victim. That victim was treated at a local hospital and later released. Blake robbed another partygoer of their gold chain and then fled the scene on foot. (See related article)

The Antioch Police Department requested an outside assist from the US Marshal Service to track and take Blake into custody. On July 27, 2020 at approximately 5:30 PM, the US Marshal Service tracked Blake to a residence in the 200 block of Cypress Avenue in Vallejo. The US Marshal Service served a search warrant at the Cypress Avenue residence and Blake was taken into custody without incident.

On July 29, 2020, this case was presented to the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office. Blake was charged with a special circumstance murder for committing a murder during the commission of a robbery (Penal Code 187(a) and Penal Code 190.2(a)(17)). Blake is currently being held at the County Jail in Martinez on a No Bail Allowed complaint.

On May 18, 2020 at approximately 1:33 AM, Antioch police officers were called to the Twin Creek Apartments, located at 1111 James Donlon Boulevard, on the call of gunshots heard near an apartment.

Numerous officers responded to the scene and located one male victim, down on the ground, on the back patio of an apartment unit. The 36-year-old male victim was suffering from at least one (1) serious gunshot wound. Officers immediately began providing first-aid and CPR to the victim until emergency paramedics arrived at the scene. The victim succumbed to his injuries and passed at the scene. Another adult male at the scene also sustained a gunshot wound and was transported by paramedics to a local area hospital, where he was admitted and listed in stable condition.

While at the scene, officers learned that there were several subjects inside the apartment when an altercation occurred. Shortly afterwards, a male suspect fired several gunshots and then fled the complex on-foot.

Antioch Police Department’s Crime Scene Investigators and Detectives with the Violent Crimes and Special Operations Units responded to the scene and took over the investigation. At this time, the suspect responsible for this shooting has not been located. Currently, the investigation is still active, and evidence is being collected.

Anyone with information is asked to call the Antioch Police Department non-emergency line at (925) 778-2441, or Detective Brogdon at (925) 779-6895. You may also text-a-tip to 274637 (CRIMES) using the key word ANTIOCH.

“You are not being inconvenienced that much.” – Supervisor Karen Mitchoff

• Half-Cent Sales Tax Ballot Measure Plans Hung Up in Sacramento

• Sheriff Continues Cooperation With ICE

By Daniel Borsuk

Over citizen objections, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0, Tuesday to approve fines for non-commercial and commercial public health violations in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The new ordinance that goes into effect immediately requires citizens to wear face masks in the public and in commercial settings or one can be subject to a fine, or multiple fines.

Contra Costa County Health Services Director Anna Roth told supervisors the county needs an ordinance setting down fines because as of Tuesday the county’s COVID-19 caseload is still rising with 7,304 cases. In the county there have been 108 COVID-19 related deaths, she reported, of which 70 percent occurred in long term care facilities. County health officials have observed a sharp rise in COVID-19 cases since May. Roth pointed out the county is on the state’s COVID-19 Monitoring List.

Deputy County Health Director Randy Sawyer explained there is an “urgent need” for county supervisors to adopt an ordinance establishing fees so that county health enforcement officers can enforce public health orders especially during the current pandemic.  Citizens are not wearing masks and are not practicing social distancing, Sawyer said.

Sawyer said there are about 200 businesses that the county has ongoing public health complaint issues with the department.

Similar ordinances have recently been adopted in Marin and Napa counties, and the Contra Costa County ordinance requires persons to wear masks when engaged in noncommercial and commercial activities.  In Contra Costa, for the first noncommercial violation the fine is $100, $200 for the second violation and $500 for each additional violation within one year of the initial violation.

For commercial activity violations, the fine for the first violation is $250, $500 for a second violation, and $1,000 for each additional violation within one year of the initial violation. “If a violation continues to more than one day, each day is a separate violation,” the ordinance states.

Public Opposition to Mask Ordinance & Fines

Speakers opposing the ordinance said requiring persons to wear masks violates their Constitutional rights. “I oppose this ordinance because it violates our liberties, “said Dave Sutton. “It restricts our liberties.”

Similarly, Deborah Thompson said, “I oppose the ordinance because it is an abridgement of our liberties.”

Comments like those sparked District One Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond to say, “I am shocked by the lack of literacy and scant knowledge that people have.”

The supervisor said some people don’t understand that this virus is causing a public health crisis where this county “may soon run out of ICU beds and two thirds of the people who have died in the county lived in congregant living facilities.”

“We are out to get these numbers down,” Supervisor Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill said in reference to the rising number of COVID-19 cases in the county. “A health order will do that. You are not being inconvenienced that much.”

Mitchoff, who noted Contra Costa County’s fines are less than other Bay Area county fines, said  the new ordinance will mean persons will now be required to wear a mask when they out of their house, even when they go to the fast-food drive thru. “If you don’t want to wear a mask then get used to wearing a ventilator,” the supervisor warned.

Richmond resident Edith Alderman supported the ordinance commenting,” I’m 100 percent in favor of the ordinance.  This can help get a handle on this disease.”

Speaking on behalf of the board, Chair Candace Andersen of Danville said “Many people are following the Health Order, but we need to increase our efforts together to slow the spread of COVID-19 in our community. To further our progress, to protect lives and reopen more local businesses and activities, we need a tool to send a fair message that everyone has to adhere to health orders to prevent the spread of the virus.”

“With a 14 percent unemployment rate, this is not the time for a sales tax hike” – Board Chair Candace Andersen

Half-Cent Sales Tax Ballot Measure Plans Hung Up in Sacramento

With the legislative clock ticking in Sacramento, the supervisors plan to meet at a special teleconferenced meeting next Tuesday in order to get a status report to waive the second reading on the supervisors’ resolution calling for a Nov. 3 half cent sales tax ballot proposal.

The special meeting was called because state legislators have not convened to act on proposed legislation, especially Contra Costa County State Senator Steve Glazer’s Senate Bill 1349, a transactions and use tax law, that the supervisors need the state Legislature to pass and Governor Gavin Newsom to sign by August 18 or the supervisors’ half cent sales proposal will not appear on the November ballot.

Deputy County Administrator Tim Ewell explained without passage of SB 1349, the county will  lose $800,000 to $1 million in state revenue to cover printing costs tied to the ballot measure, but the clock is ticking and the supervisors need to have SB 1349 passed in the legislature and signed by the governor by August 18.

“I want those funds,” said supervisor Mitchoff, “but it will only move forward if the legislature acts.”

Supervisors voted 4-1, with Chair Candace Andersen of Danville casting the lone opposing vote, to move forward to meet next Tuesday.

“I will not support it” said Andersen, who also opposed the tax increase proposal at the board’s July 14 meeting.  “With a 14 percent unemployment rate, this is not the time for a sales tax hike with such high unemployment rate.”

One of the few speakers opposing the proposal Tom Townsend of El Cerrito, said, “I am taxed to the limit and I oppose the half cent sales tax.”

“I am unsure if this ballot measure will pass,” warned District 3 Supervisor Mitchoff, but she voted in favor of it anyway.

Tax proponent Supervisor Gioia said a county resident would typically pay $60 to $80 a year should the tax measure pass in November.

The proposed language for the county tax measure reads:

“To keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers; provide timely fire and emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services, shall the Contra Costa County measure levying a ½ cent sales tax, exempting food sales, providing an estimated $81,000,000 annually for 20 years that the state cannot take, requiring fiscal accountability, with funds benefitting county residents, be adopted?”

Sheriff Continues Cooperation with ICE

Sheriff David Livingston ran into criticism from the public about how the Sheriff’s Office works with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) but is not expected to change his policies.

“The Sheriff continues to respond to ICE notification requests,” said Melanie Kim, a staff attorney for Advance Justice – Asian Law Caucus. “These practices are especially cruel given that COVID-19 is running rampant inside ICE facilities.  People in ICE custody are vulnerable to grave illness or death.”

The sheriff told supervisors that because of the COVID-19 hygiene practices that his officers and the inmates use at the West Contra Costa facility in Richmond and Martinez jail, there have been no reported COVID-19 cases.

The sheriff reported that in the past year his office detained for ICE enforcement purposes, 72 were Hispanic prisoners, 18 were Asian prisoners, one was a Black prisoner, three were white prisoners, and two “other” prisoners.

Sheriff Livingston said of the 95 prisoners reported to ICE, 71 were charged for miscellaneous felonies, four for penal or murder, five for robbery, two for car jackings, and for 11 for assaults with deadly weapons.

While there were a number of critics of the Sheriff’s Office asking that the Board of Supervisors to reduce funding for the upcoming 2020-2021 fiscal year, Karen Clarkson was one of few backers of Sheriff Livingston’s department requesting that funding remain unchanged. “I support the Sheriff,” she said. “It is an unsafe practice to defund the Sheriff.”

“This county should be safe for everyone, whether they are documented or undocumented,” said Anisha Walker, who requested that supervisors cut funds to the Sheriff’s Office.

“I have no sympathy for those who break the law and are violent criminals, “said Supervisor Mitchoff. “I support the sheriff. And I support social justice and equality at a time we are in a COVID -19 pandemic.”