I’ve been a pharmacist for more than 50 years. In that time, I’ve witnessed staggering medical advances. Patients now have access — at least in theory — to lifesaving medicines that seemed like science fiction just a decade or two ago.
But in practice, tens of millions of Americans struggle to obtain those drugs. In recent years, I’ve watched more and more patients approach the pharmacy counter, look at the required co-pay on the screen with horror, and glumly walk away without their prescribed treatments.
These patients have insurance. But all too often they can’t afford the out-of-pocket costs that remain after coverage kicks in.
The crisis stems, in large part, from the fact that big insurers like UnitedHealth, Cigna, and Humana don’t merely process claims, anymore. Their parent companies control physicians’ practices and hospitals. They also own pharmacies and operate pharmacy benefit managers — the middlemen that determine which drugs patients can access and what they pay for them.
Today, just three PBMs (pharmacy benefit manager) control prescription drug access for roughly 80% of Americans. In virtually any other industry, that level of concentration would raise serious concerns about competition. Yet these vertically integrated conglomerates have warped the healthcare system to maximize their own profits — and gouge patients — every step of the way.
PBMs typically base patients’ out-of-pocket costs on drugs’ much higher “list” prices, rather than the discounted prices negotiated behind the scenes. Those inflated list prices only exist on paper, yet they justify higher co-pays while also generating larger rebates for PBMs and more profit for the companies that own them. In some cases, PBMs collect more from patients via co-pays or co-insurance than they actually reimburse pharmacies for dispensing a drug.
PBMs also profit by making it harder for patients to access the medicines their providers prescribe. One of their most common tactics is prior authorization. Providers must justify prescriptions they have already determined are appropriate and wait for the insurer’s approval before patients can begin treatment. The process can delay care for days, weeks, or even months. Faced with those hurdles, up to eight in 10 patients forgo treatment altogether.
Then there’s “step therapy”, sometimes called “fail first”. Patients must first try one or more older, less expensive medicines before gaining access to the treatment their provider originally recommended. That may reduce short-term costs for insurers, but it can also delay effective care and, in some cases, seriously harm patients.
Together these, and other, barriers contribute to unmanaged chronic disease, avoidable hospitalizations, and more than 100,000 preventable deaths every year.
Fortunately, Washington is beginning to crack down. The Federal Trade Commission has sued the nation’s three largest PBMs over practices that inflate drug prices. The Department of Labor recently proposed a rule that’d require PBMs to better disclose the fees and compensation they receive. And earlier this year, Congress passed legislation requiring PBMs to increase transparency and pass through more of the discounts they receive to employers.
It’s a great start — and a much more viable way to decrease Americans’ pharmacy bills than one of the other ideas frequently tossed around Capitol Hill. Some lawmakers want to mimic other nations’ price controls on prescription drugs. But artificially lowering what biotech companies charge for medicines would deter research investments — meaning that the pharmacists of the future will have fewer lifesaving drugs to dispense to patients.
Until policymakers decisively confront PBMs, Americans will continue to pay more, get less of the care they need, and be at risk of worse health.
Salvatore J. (Sal) Giorgianni, Jr, PharmD, CMHE is vice-president and cofounder of Healthy Men, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing the health of boys, men and their families. He is chair-emeritus and cofounder of the American Public Health Association Caucus On Men’s Health. This piece originally appeared in Issues & Insights.
A voter casts a ballot during the presidential primary election on Super Tuesday in Oakland. Photo: Andrew Reed/EdSource
PRO: Teachers’ union leader says Prop. 3 would help lock in hard-won resources for student well-being
By Gloria Martinez, EdSource.org – republished with permission
When I was a special education teacher, I learned that one of the cruelest questions you can ask an underfunded school is: What can you afford to go without?
Before California voters passed Proposition 30 in 2012, this was not a hypothetical question. I saw firsthand how budget constraints affected students’ daily lives, especially in less affluent communities where resources were already stretched thin. Some schools lacked the counselors, school psychologists and social workers needed to recognize when a child was struggling. Teachers did what they could, but in classrooms of 30 or more students, we could not replace these trained professionals or meet every child’s needs alone.
By raising taxes on California’s highest earners (currently, couples earning more than $742,000), Proposition 30 generated additional revenue for public schools and higher education. In the years that followed, teachers across the state used collective bargaining to advocate for improvements that directly affected students and school communities: smaller class sizes, art and music programs, and mental health professionals who helped schools better support students’ overall well-being.
In Los Angeles, those resources also helped create conditions for educators to pursue further gains through common-good bargaining, including community schools, the Black Student Achievement Plan, and additional staffing. These were more than budget line items. They meant more readily available support for students, expanded opportunities for children from low-income backgrounds and from immigrant communities and communities of color, and greater capacity for schools to intervene when students and their families needed help.
Today, as voters consider Proposition 3, which would make these existing tax rates permanent for California’s highest-income earners, we must remember what it took to build that stronger foundation and what we stand to lose if it erodes.
If the tax rates expire in 2031, California would give its wealthiest households a massive tax cut and forgo an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state revenue. This financial pitfall will make it harder for school districts to sustain the programs and staffing students rely on, including mental health and student support services. Counselors, school psychologists and social workers — positions we worked to expand in our schools — could be at risk.
“If the tax rates expire in 2031, California would give its wealthiest households a massive tax cut and forgo an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state revenue.“
Protecting that investment is especially urgent as students face increasingly complex mental health challenges. For young people experiencing depression, anxiety or suicidal thoughts, school-based mental health services reach more than twice as many as primary care or child welfare services. For many students, school may be the most accessible place to find help.
Students also bring fears into school that originate far beyond campus. Immigration raids across California have exacerbated students’ anxieties about family separation, fears for parents’ safety, and difficulty concentrating in class. In moments like these, psychiatric social workers have provided students with weekly check-ins, psychological counseling and information about legal support services. They have also facilitated community circles where students can discuss unfolding events and how those events affect them.
If schools lose these professionals, students and families will have fewer places to turn for help. Families with the means to do so may be able to pay for private counseling, but families without those means can lose access to critical support altogether.
The gains made possible by Proposition 30 demonstrate what sustained public investment can achieve. Without continued funding that would come from Proposition 3, it’s hard to see how schools can maintain those hard-won gains, preserve mental health services and build the capacity they need to respond to students’ changing needs.
Years from now, our students will have to live with the consequences of the choices we make during this election. Children need more than academic instruction to thrive. They need the stability and support that allow them to recover from setbacks, develop confidence and imagine a future beyond their immediate challenges.
Proposition 3 will not magically fix California’s schools. But without this revenue, schools will struggle to maintain the staffing and programs our students deserve. The question we must ask is not simply what California can afford to fund, but what we are willing to risk going without.
Voters at a polling place. Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
CON: Taxpayers leader says California doesn’t need another forever tax
As statewide student enrollment declines
By Robert Gutierrez, EdSource.org – republished with permission
Proposition 3 asks voters to approve a massive tax increase that would not take effect until 2031, when California’s finances may look completely different from how they do today. Voters should reject Proposition 3 and keep their options open.
In 2031, there will be a new president in the Oval Office, a new governor, and a different political landscape in California — especially if voters approve Proposition 40 to impose a wealth tax that could prompt an exodus of the taxpayers targeted by Proposition 3.
The state also will have significantly fewer students in our public schools. The Department of Finance projects a decline of 710,500 students from 2026 through 2036, and by the midpoint of this decline, we undoubtedly will see some major changes in the education structure.
This is only the beginning of the list of unknowns. Other questions include:
Will Californians still be paying billions of dollars per year for a nonfunctioning “high-speed” railroad system in 2031, rather than prioritizing schools for that spending?
Will taxpayers still be paying for ineffective programs that haven’t solved homelessness?
Will startups launch in California, or take their jobs and economic benefits to states with more competitive tax rates?
In short, it makes no sense to amend the state constitution to commit to a tax increase now, five years in advance, when we have no idea what condition the state will be in when the tax would take effect.
What difference could five years make?
California’s finances can change substantially in a short period. Total state revenue for the current fiscal year is projected to be $21.5 billion higher than the amount collected five years earlier. The Department of Finance also recently reported that general fund revenue was running $5.5 billion above the projection used to draft the 2026-27 budget just six months earlier. This means the education funding guarantee will go up, too.
“It makes no sense to amend the state constitution to commit to a tax increase now, five years in advance, when we have no idea what condition the state will be in when the tax would take effect.“
Timing is only one of the problems. While Proposition 3 is marketed as a “tax extension” that would only affect high-income residents, the truth is that it’s a major tax increase that would hit millions of small businesses as well as high-income individuals. The result: California’s affordability crisis gets worse.
The small-business aspect of Proposition 3 hasn’t received enough attention. California’s tax structure does not neatly separate business income from personal income, and many small businesses operate as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or S corporations that report business earnings on personal income tax returns.
This means the higher tax rates imposed by Proposition 3 would increase taxes on many small businesses, ultimately leading to higher prices for customers, fewer job opportunities for workers, or both.
The Public Policy Institute of California reported in February that sole proprietorships accounted for more than 3 million California businesses in 2023. But the number of those businesses whose owners would be impacted by Proposition 3 depends on their taxable income.
To the extent that Proposition 3 would hit high-income earners, it would make California more reliant on the most volatile source of revenue, while simultaneously making it even more volatile by giving high-income residents a new incentive to leave the state.
California already imposes the nation’s highest personal income taxes and would have a top personal income tax rate of 10.3% on income over $1 million without Proposition 3. The state also imposes a 1.3% State Disability Insurance tax on all income from salaries and wages, bringing the top tax rate to 11.6% on those forms of income, without Proposition 3.
As for the issue of an “extension” versus an “increase,” the fact is clear: If Proposition 3 is approved, Californians will pay $5 billion to $15 billion a year more in state income tax than if the initiative is defeated (according to estimates by the Legislative Analyst’s Office). That’s an increase — and a very large one, at that.
Finally, the measure would continue the trend in which “temporary” taxes in California never seem to go away. As the proponents of Proposition 40 are discovering, voters are extremely distrustful of taxes described as temporary. Why? In large part because of Proposition 3 and its predecessor, Proposition 55 of 2016, asking voters to renew a tax originally described as a temporary charge to cover an emergency.
The ballot argument for the original initiative, Proposition 30 of 2012, said the taxes “are temporary, balanced and necessary to protect schools and safety” — one of the argument’s five mentions of the allegedly temporary nature.
With revenue arriving above projections and the state spending billions on questionable programs without proper controls or a review of effectiveness, it can no longer be said that California has a fiscal emergency.
The voters should give much-needed relief to small businesses and their customers, avoid making fiscal decisions prematurely, and let the “emergency tax” expire on schedule. Vote NO on Proposition 3.
Robert Gutierrez is president of the California Taxpayers Association, which is celebrating its 100th year of serving as the state’s largest and oldest association representing taxpayers in this state.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view.
The California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union and one of the largest funders of California political campaigns, has spent more than $65.5 million this election cycle, campaign finance records show.
Most of that money — $58.3 million — has been spent in support of Proposition 3, a ballot initiative to make permanent a temporary tax on high earners that helps fund public schools and community colleges. CTA’s contributions account for 87% of the Yes on 3 campaign’s funding. Records show the No on 3 effort has raised a total of $5,500, meaning CTA alone has spent nearly $9,700 for every dollar spent opposing the proposition.
CTA is also a major source of independent support for State Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate Richard Barrera, having spent $8.4 million as of Oct. 27. That includes spending in support of Barrera and spending in opposition to his opponent, Sonja Shaw.
The union is by far the biggest Barrera supporter in terms of spending, with 96% of independent spending to support Barrera having come from CTA through various committees. The union also contributed $39,200 directly to Barrera’s campaign.
Other causes CTA has spent on include $1.5 million to oppose Prop. 39, an initiative to add stronger voter ID; $500,000 to oppose Prop. 43, which aims to require voter-proposed tax increases meet the two-thirds majority required for Legislature-proposed taxes; and $481,000 in support of local bond measures across the state.
Unlike in previous elections, CTA has mostly stayed out of the race for governor. Records show $39,200 in contributions to Xavier Becerra’s campaign or independent expenditure committees supporting him.
To meet Nov. 30 deadline for 2027-28 Fiscal Year General Fund reductions
By Allen D. Payton
The Antioch Unified School District Board of Trustees will hold a special meeting for a Budget Study Session on Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. According to the meeting agenda, “The Board will review the District’s current fiscal status and discuss potential budget strategies.”
An overview entitled, “Fiscal Recovery & Financial Stability” will be provided by Rosa Ma Loza, the District’s Assistant Superintendent for Business and Operations, which explains the purpose of the study session is to “Understand Where the revised General Fund budget is allocated; Prioritize What to protect and which unrestricted expenditures to evaluate first; and Direct Board to give staff a clear direction toward October 28 and November 18.”
After having made actual cuts of $10.28 million from the General Fund budget, the Board needs to make an additional $7.99 million in reductions previously reported as attained but as of Oct. 8, now updated as unattained.
Source: AUSD
Note: S&C refers to Standards and Contract dollars. According to the California Department of Education (CDE), in California school finance, “standard dollars” generally refer to the state’s per‑student Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and related budget standards, while “contract dollars” refer to the actual contractual amounts districts must spend or bid for services, often tied to specific agreements or procurement rules.
Standard Dollars — State Funding Standards
The CDE defines “standard” criteria in its Criteria and Standards for Fiscal Solvency for school district budgets. These are the benchmarks used to review and approve district budgets.
Contract Dollars — Procurement and Contractual Obligations
“Contract dollars” are the actual dollar amounts in contracts that districts must follow, often set by law or regulation.
Meetings with Parents, Community, District Leadership & Staff Oct. 26 & 27before Nov. 30 Deadline
The District must submit the detailed list of Board-approved budget reductions for 2027–28 to the Contra Costa County Office of Education by Nov. 30th. Prior to that the Board will hold meetings with parents and the community on October 26, in the morning and afternoon, and with District leadership and staff on October 27.
Meeting Details
The school board meeting will be held in the District Office Board Room at 510 G Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed livestream on the District’s website or the District’s YouTube channel.
The Martins, the broken window of David’s rental car and one of his cameras that was stolen containing a photo of the bride, Antioch resident, Jenna Wesenhagen-Banks. Source: GoFundMe
Antioch native David Martin, Jr. seeks public’s help for return of photos, hard drives and equipment or replacement
By Kirsten Mitchell, Communications Associate, GoFundMe
The newlyweds Jenna Wesenhagen-Banks and Nick Banks on Sunday, Oct. 4, 2026. Photo by Carla Taylor Acevedo on Facebook
An Antioch couple’s wedding photos were reportedly stolen from their photographer’s rental car in Oakland just three days after their ceremony, and now the community is helping them try to recover those memories. David Martin, Jr., an Antioch native now based in Southern California, returned to photograph Jenna and Nick Banks’ October 4 wedding. According to the GoFundMe, thieves took nearly all the equipment he uses to support his family, along with drives holding years of work and the only copies of the couple’s wedding photos. Loved ones are asking for help finding the stolen drives and memory cards while raising funds to replace his gear and refund the couple if their photos aren’t recovered.
“What should have been a lifetime of cherished memories vanished in an instant. David is devastated, not only by the loss of his livelihood, but by the thought that Jenna and Nick may never get to relive the most important moments of their special day. Cameras can be replaced. A wedding day cannot.”
In a video on the GoFundMe page entitled “Restore David’s Livelihood”, Martin, who owns David Martin Jr. Photography according to his Facebook page, and is based in Orange County, CA according to his website, says, “I “lost…80% of my equipment.”
According to a KTVU FOX2 news report, break-in of his rental car in downtown Oakland happened days after the wedding in which “gear worth $35,000, including two cameras, lenses, a drone, a laptop as well as a hard drive and memory cards with the couple’s photos” were taken.
Post on GoFundMeby Lina Martin for David Martin
“On October 7, David Martin, a hardworking photographer and family man, had his vehicle broken into in Oakland. Thieves stole nearly all of his professional photography equipment, including cameras, lenses, drone, a laptop, accessories and hard drives holding years of irreplaceable work.
“In a matter of minutes, David lost the tools he depends on to support his family.
“The most heartbreaking part is that the stolen memory cards and hard drive held the only copies of Jenna and Nick Banks’ wedding photos. The couple had been married just three days earlier, on October 4. What should have been a lifetime of cherished memories vanished in an instant. David is devastated, not only by the loss of his livelihood, but by the thought that Jenna and Nick may never get to relive the most important moments of their special day. Cameras can be replaced. A wedding day cannot.
“David is doing everything he can to make it right. If the photos aren’t recovered, he will refund Jenna and Nick in full. He’ll also photograph them again, at no cost, in their wedding attire so they have something beautiful to hold on to.
“The theft also hit David in the middle of a video project in the Bay Area. All of the footage he had already captured was lost, which means he has to reshoot from scratch and cover the cost of travel all over again, on top of replacing his gear.
“For 12 years, David has photographed weddings, families, and milestones for people across Los Angeles and Orange County. Photography isn’t just his passion. It’s how he puts food on the table for his family.”
Where your donation goes
“Your support will replace the cameras, lenses, lighting, drone, laptop, accessories and storage David needs to get back to work, cover the travel costs of reshooting his lost video project, and help fund a full refund to Jenna and Nick if their photos can’t be recovered.”
Help us find the photos
“There’s still a chance the drives turn up. If you see cameras, lenses, laptops, or hard drives being sold in the Oakland area, on Facebook Marketplace, OfferUp, Craigslist, or anywhere else, please reach out through the “Contact” button on this page. A police report has been filed (RD# 26-042959). Getting those drives and or SD/Express cards back is the only way Jenna and Nick get their wedding photos.”
How you can help
“Every donation, no matter the size, makes a difference. If you can’t donate, please share this page. The more people who see it, the better the chance someone spots the stolen gear.
“Let’s come together and help David get back behind the camera.
“Thank you for supporting David and his family.”
—————
As of 9:30 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2026, $14,215 has been raised from 54 donations of the total goal of $16,000.
A member of the public speaks after midnight during the Antioch City Council meeting on the topic of the Statement of Investment Policy as the few remaining audience members hold signs and Gaza flags and fight sleep early Wednesday morning, Oct. 14, 2026. Video screenshot.
Would exclude investments in aerospace, coal, oil and gas, specifically in Chevron and BP, as well as Caterpillar whose heavy equipment products have been used in Gaza demolition
“I’m not sure this is right for primetime.” – Mayor Pro Tem Don Freitas
“…we exist within a genocidal government that invests in the military industrial complex…that also sells weapons to other genocidal governments. It is a conundrum because we’re existing right now on stolen, colonized land.” – Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker
“I’m not in support of changing our policy.” – Mayor Ron Bernal
By Allen D. Payton
Just before midnight Tuesday, October 13, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 4-0, with District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson absent, to extend the meeting that is usually to end by 11:00 p.m., until 1:00 a.m., to take up the matter of a proposed “Ethical Investing” policy that excludes certain industries and specific companies, because some of their products are used by Israel in Gaza. The proposals were developed by a work group that included City Treasurer Jorge Rojas, Jr., the City’s investment advisor, and three members of Contra Costa Divest, an activist group opposed to investing in oil, natural gas and coal, and more. But no decision was reached as council members said the proposed policy was too broad, they did not have enough information and shared concerns that it gave the City Treasurer too much power.
Proposed Policy Language
Under Section IV, entitled, “Ethical Investing”, the proposed policy includes the following language:
“It is the City’s objective to integrate socially responsible and ethical investing into investment decisions to the extent practicable and possible as a way to make a positive impact on human rights by minimizing potential investment exposure to abuses such as slavery, apartheid or genocide. The City will not invest in industries that are known to harm human health or the environment. Section VI outlines prohibited investments under this objective.
“Nothing in section VI shall restrict the City Treasurer from determining additional specific companies that do not comply with socially responsible and ethical investing. The City Treasurer will periodically review the City’s investment portfolio against current known facts and circumstances from trusted sources for any potential investments held that would not be considered socially responsible or ethical and notify the investment advisor to divest as soon as it is economically practical.
“Previously held investments that are not consistent with the criteria defined and prohibited in Section VI will be liquidated prior to maturity if and only if the sale would not result in a financial loss for the City. If the early sale would result in a financial loss to the City, the investment will be held until either (1) the time at which it can be sold without a loss or (2) until maturity.
Section VI, subsection 3. entitled “Socially Responsible and Ethical Investment Exclusions” includes the following proposed language:
“a. The City will not invest in any companies that produce alcohol for public consumption or tobacco products [defined by Bloomberg sectors: Beverages-Wine/Spirits, Brewery, Tobacco].
b. The City will not invest in any aerospace and defense companies, including those that produce or manufacture firearms, and ammunition, explosives, and military electronics [defined by Bloomberg sectors: Firearms & Ammunition, Explosives, Electronics-Military].
c. The City will not invest in any private prisons [defined by Bloomberg sector: Private Prisons].
d. The City will not invest in companies that produce or manufacture coal, oil and gas, oil and gas services and pipelines [defined by Bloomberg sector: Coal, Oil & Gas, Oil & Gas Services, Pipelines].
e. The City will not invest in these specific companies:
i. Chevron Corp
ii. Caterpillar Inc
iii. Lockheed Martin Corp
iv. BP PLC
f. Any companies the City Treasurer deems not socially responsible or ethical upon verification with trusted sources, and subsequently notified in writing to the investment advisor and approved by the City Council.”
The Council heard from the public and then discussed the matter.
Public Comments
All but one member of the public spoke in favor of the proposed City investment policy changes. Only this reporter, speaking as an Antioch resident, spoke against some aspects of the proposal.
I said, “First, this new, controversial investment policy should not be decided by the Council after midnight when most residents have already gone to bed and can’t participate. But if you’re going to make a decision tonight, I don’t think it’s unethical to invest in aerospace, such as SpaceX. What are they doing wrong? Nor is it unethical to invest in oil or gas which we all use every day, and specifically Chevron which directly employs 1,200 people at the refinery in Richmond and an additional estimated 1,800 contractors, some of which I’m sure live in Antioch. But guess what? They’re not here tonight to speak on this matter because they’re probably in bed already getting ready to go to work tomorrow.”
“As for Caterpillar…other than the fact their products are being used in Gaza, how can you blame a company for what others do with their products? Where does that start, where does that end?” I asked.
“Also, I would a add to the end of subsection ‘f.’ regarding giving the City Treasurer the power, to add the words, ‘and approved by the City Council.’ Because the current City Treasurer was not elected by the people with their knowledge that he would be given this much power or anybody. It should wait until after the next election if you’re going to apply that,” I concluded.
Council Discussion But No Decision
District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha was first on the dais to speak saying, “I’m impressed with where we are from our previous conversations. I’m happy to see there’s a working group come together. When I’m looking through the document the one question I have…it does seem somewhat of a subjective thought about the City Treasurer.”
“So, one individual is going to determine what we’re going to do as a City?” he asked.
Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas then said, “I have questions for Justin (Resuello from PFMAM the City’s investment advisor). Amended item number six. Defined by Bloomberg. We don’t have a copy.”
“As part of our…monitoring…we use Bloomberg terminals,” Resuello responded. “We want to make it very clear that Bloomberg…We’re trying to be very explicit and we’re using Bloomberg.”
“So, the United States of America is the largest manufacturer of weapons. So, with that, how can we invest in bonds?” Freitas asked.
“The United States is not a company,” Resuello responded.
“The government has contracts with all the companies that manufacture bombs and weapons,” the District 3 councilman pointed out.
“We could still invest in U.S. bonds because they’re not companies,” the investment advisor stated.
“Even though they invest, buy and distribute all war materials to Israel, in this case, it keeps coming up,” Freitas continued. “It’s peculiar to me that you can make a distinction between the two. That’s the problem I have with the policy. It’s so broad that if we’re going to be in compliance with it, it’s very clear the City won’t invest in any of these. I don’t know how you distinguish.”
City Finance Director Dawn Merchant said, “The government according to Bloomberg is not defined as an aerospace or defense company. It is a government agency.”
Regarding oil, coal and gas he said, “The United States leases our land.”
“To me, the policy is too broad,” he stated. “There’s nothing from Bloomberg attached here.”
“I’m absolutely opposed to the City Treasurer making decisions. He can make recommendations. It’s up to the City Council…to set policy,” Freitas continued. “That’s another very big issue I have.”
“I applaud the people who have gotten together. But it’s just too broad for me,” he said. “I like the language, ‘the City will not invest in industries that will harm health and the environment’.”
“You could change ‘F’ that whatever companies the Treasurer deems is unethical will bring back to the Council for discussion,” Merchant interjected but added, “It’s the elected City Treasurer’s role. It’s not the Council’s role.”
“I think that’s an improvement,” Freitas responded.
“That’s why I brought it up. That would have to be modified,” Rocha added.
“What kind of impact has such an investment policy had for other agencies?” Freitas asked Resuello.
“I couldn’t say these socially responsible investment policies…had a positive or negative result,” the investment advisor responded. “They are fee neutral.”
“Those portfolios have outperformed non-ESG portfolios over the last 10 years. But if you turn the clock back…non-ESG strategies outperformed ESG portfolios from say 2005 to 2020,” Resuello stated.
When pressed further on the difference by Freitas, he said, “Within one basis point.”
“So, one-one-hundredth. OK,” Freitas responded.
“There would be about an $11,000 loss if we sold one of the investments right now,” Merchant shared, speaking of the City’s investment in Lockheed Martin.
“It’s scheduled to mature in August 2028,” Resuello explained.
District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker spoke next saying, “I guess what my brain is telling me at almost one in the morning. I guess what Mayor Pro Tem Freitas is saying is that we exist within a genocidal government that invests in the military industrial complex…that also sells weapons to other genocidal governments. It is a conundrum because we’re existing right now on stolen, colonized land. So, I can see how we can get to that conclusion. We are currently under a genocidal government. So, the argument would be what difference would this policy make if we are going to invest in America anyway when the American government consistently is investing in the military?”
“I support the policy as is, with the change, obviously around the Treasurer,” she stated then asked, “Things do have to come back to the Council as recommendations to make final, yes or no?”
“The City Treasurer has complete autonomy to make the decision with the investment advisor,” Merchant stated.
“The Treasurer is an elected official with these duties already. What we’re talking about is stripping the elected official of his duties. So, wouldn’t we need a completely different conversation about that?” Torres-Walker.
“Yes,” City Attorney Lori Asuncion responded.
“The Constitution of the State of California determines the duties of an elected City Treasurer,” Freitas said. “I don’t think we’re changing the Constitution of the State of California.”
Mayor Ron Bernal was the last council member to speak on the matter saying, “I’d like to thank everyone who was part of the discussion, city staff. I understand the importance of the genocide discussion and the claim. I guess the thing I’ve always had challenge with…if I look around the world…there are atrocities happening, now, not just in Gaza and by Israel.”
“The four…corporations that have been picked out, when there’s a list of many, many companies that provide weapons…all kinds of suppliers that supply Israel with…equipment, with all kinds of things,” he continued. “A U.N. report…2025…Human Rights Office database identified 158 companies involved in specified activities of Israel settlements. So, picking out four specific companies that are listed here, to me there are many companies that could have been listed, as well. I just believe that the list is too long and too broad to try to capture it for this purpose. I also agree…the City Treasurer should not have…to me, again, nothing towards Jorge. But anybody in that position it gives too much authority.”
“I’m not in support of changing our policy. I think we stay with what we currently have as a policy,” Bernal stated.
Merchant then proposed language for the City Treasurer clause.
“In section four it says, ‘nothing in section six restricts the City Treasurer.’ That would have to change because we’re doing exactly that,” Freitas stated.
Merchant responded with more defined language.
“It’s 12:51 so, it’s going to die without a second or die without a majority vote,” Torres-Walker said and made a motion to “approve the policy with the exceptions recommended by Finance Director Dawn Merchant.” But no one seconded the motion.
“Because I have hesitancy,” Freitas interjected. “It really is Lockheed. I’m willing to keep Lockheed there but delete the other three. I can live with that. I would like this to come back on a quarterly basis. I want to know if this will be the policy. My concern, it’s too broad…and there needs to be oversight. I’m willing to try for a year. But it needs to come back in a year.”
Bernal then mentioned the clause regarding, “not investing in industries that are known to harm human health or the environment.”
“I’m willing to support your recommended changes,” Torres-Walker said to Freitas.
Merchant said what Bernal quoted is a broad description.
But he reiterated, “In industries that are known to harm human health or the environment. That includes pretty much everything. I’d like to strike that statement. It’s too broad.”
“My concern is it’s too broad,” Freitas reiterated. “The committee has worked this far. I’d say, ‘go back’. This is the first time the council has heard it. I’m not sure this is right for primetime. I think, really, you need to go back, and various members of the council, I don’t think you’re going to get a second or three votes of council, right now.”
“I think it needs to come back with what the Bloomberg directions are,” he added.
“I’d like to see the specific statutory, what the City Treasurer can and can’t do under state law…what the responsibilities the Treasurer has” Bernal added.
With no other motion the council ended discussion of the matter.
Antioch, Calif. – The Antioch Police Department announced today that it has received a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to support its ongoing enforcement and education programs to help reduce the number of serious injuries and deaths on our roads.
“True community safety is built on more than just response, it is enforced by prevention. Grant funds empower our police department to go beyond traditional enforcement by delivering targeted education and supporting smart road engineering. Through this three-prong approach, we aren’t just reacting to crime and traffic dangers, we are actively designing a safer environment with our community,” said Antioch Police Department Sergeant Rob Green.
The grant will provide additional programs and resources, including:
• DUI checkpoints and patrols focused on stopping suspected impaired drivers.
• High-visibility distracted driving enforcement operations targeting drivers in violation of California’s hands-free cell phone law.
• Enforcement operations focused on the most dangerous driver behaviors that put the safety of people biking or walking at risk.
• Enforcement operations focused on top driving violations that cause crashes: speeding, failure to yield, stop sign and/or red-light running, and improper turning or lane changes.
• Community presentations on traffic safety issues such as distracted driving, impaired driving, speeding and bicycle and pedestrian safety.
• Collaborative enforcement efforts with neighboring agencies.
• Officer training and/or recertification to detect and evaluate impairment levels in suspected impaired drivers: Standard Field Sobriety Test (SFST), Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) and Drug Recognition Expert (DRE).
“Traffic safety begins with everyday decisions,” OTS Director Stephanie Dougherty said. “When we address the risky driving behaviors that put everyone on the road in danger, including speeding, distraction, and impairment, we can prevent crashes and save lives. By supporting enforcement efforts and educating communities, we’re helping to build a safety culture where looking out for others and safe travel behaviors are the norm.”
The grant program runs through September 2027.
Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Discuss 2027-28 General Fund Budget with projected $11.2M deficit, consider closing Marina due to annual subsidy
Receive reports on APD Reform, Youth Services, Delta Landing homeless hotel in Pittsburg, vote on 3% COLA for final employee group
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting Tuesday night, Oct. 13, 2026, the Antioch City Council will deal with 315 pages of a full agenda with 18 items, including 16 items on the Consent Calendar. They will begin with a Special Meeting at 5:00 p.m. to discuss and give input to staff on development of the Fiscal Year 2027-2028 General Fund Budget. Then at 7:00 p.m. their Regular Meeting will begin.
2027-28 General Fund Budget Development
During their Special Meeting, the Council will discuss the 2027-28 General Fund Budget Development which shows the City facing a $16.25 million deficit before a $5 million transfer from the Budget Stabilization Fund for a projected net $11.25 million deficit for the fiscal year.
One item of controversy is the possible closing of the Antioch Marina. According to the City staff report, “as mentioned at the August 25th session, the non-departmental budget reviewed included a reduction in the subsidy to close the Marina and provide for only debt service repayment and the existing full-time staffing at the Marina, which would need to be re-assigned to other areas within Public Works. If the Marina were closed, this could potentially provide $185K in budget savings in 2027/28, however the loss of a recreational facility and potential harmful business impact to the restaurant at the Marina may negate the financial savings.”
Presentations
Toward the beginning of the Regular Meeting the Council will be provided with three presentations including:
Delta Landing: Program Operations, Service and Outcomes report by Contra Costa Health for the homeless hotel in Pittsburg at the former Motel 6 site on Loveridge Road.
Consent Calendar
Under the Consent Calendar the Council will vote on accepting completion for the Antioch Water Park Concrete improvements 2026 Project (Item 15.L.) and Pool Resurfacing Project (Item 15.M.). Plus, they will vote on rejecting all bids and re-evaluating the scope of the Installation of Park Signage Project (Item 15.N.) because the lowest responsive bid that could be accepted was over $86,000 more than budgeted. Finally, the Council will vote on approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Antioch and the Confidential Unit for a 3% COLA at a total cost of $111,883, with $92,419 from the General Fund, and approving a Fiscal Year 2026/27 budget amendment to cover the additional costs (Item 15.P.). As previously reported, the Confidential Unit includes a variety of staff positions: the Deputy City Clerk, Account Specialists, Analysts, Assistants, Coordinators, Specialists and Technicians. The 26 employees in the Unit have been working without a contract since September 30, 2025. See City’s Master Salary Schedule.
Reestablishing Economic Development Department
Under Item 16, the Council will vote on reestablishing a standalone Economic Development Department separate from Community Development, determine funding for an Economic Development Director position with an amended job classification and amended salary range, an Economic Development Specialist, and assigning a Department budget.
Downtown Security Services
Finally, under Item 17, the Council will give direction to staff on reestablishing private security services for downtown Rivertown. That includes initiating a competitive Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process for private security services; determining the geographic scope of services, including whether coverage should be limited to City-owned properties and designated public areas in the Rivertown/Downtown area or include additional areas throughout the City; and determining the days and hours of operation for private security services. The council will decide on a budget during a future meeting.
Meeting Details
The Special Meeting begins at 5:00 p.m. and Regular Meeting begins at 7:00 p.m., both in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street, in historic, downtown Rivertown and can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website, on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99 or on the City’s YouTube channel.
See the complete agenda packet with staff reports here.
