Executive Order on Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

NOVEMBER 15, 2021

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to effectively implement the historic infrastructure investments in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (the Act), it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Background.  The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is a once-in-a-generation investment in our Nation’s infrastructure and competitiveness. It will help rebuild America’s roads, bridges, and rails; expand access to clean drinking water; work to ensure access to high-speed Internet throughout the Nation; tackle the climate crisis; advance environmental justice; and invest in communities that have too often been left behind.  It will accomplish all of this while driving the creation of good-paying union jobs and growing the economy sustainably and equitably for decades to come.

Critical to achieving these goals will be the effective implementation of the Act by my Administration, as well as by State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments.

Sec. 2.  Implementation Priorities.  In implementing the Act, all agencies (as described in section 3502(1) of title 44, United States Code, except for the agencies described in section 3502(5) of title 44), shall, as appropriate and to the extent consistent with law, prioritize:

(a)  investing public dollars efficiently, working to avoid waste, and focusing on measurable outcomes for the American people;

(b)  increasing the competitiveness of the United States economy, including through implementing the Act’s Made-in-America requirements and bolstering United States manufacturing and supply chains;

(c)  improving job opportunities for millions of Americans by focusing on high labor standards for these jobs, including prevailing wages and the free and fair chance to join a union;

(d)  investing public dollars equitably, including through the Justice40 Initiative, which is a Government-wide effort toward a goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits from Federal investments in climate and clean energy flow to disadvantaged communities;

(e)  building infrastructure that is resilient and that helps combat the crisis of climate change; and

(f)  effectively coordinating with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments in implementing these critical investments.

Sec. 3.  Infrastructure Implementation Task Force.  (a)  There is established within the Executive Office of the President the Infrastructure Implementation Task Force (Task Force).  The function of the Task Force is to coordinate effective implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and other related significant infrastructure programs within the executive branch.

(b)  The Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council shall serve as Co‑Chair of the Task Force.

(c)  There is established within the Executive Office of the President the position of White House Infrastructure Coordinator, who shall serve as Co-Chair of the Task Force.

(d)  In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Task Force shall consist of the following members:

(i)     the Secretary of the Interior;

(ii)    the Secretary of Agriculture;

(iii)   the Secretary of Commerce;

(iv)    the Secretary of Labor;

(v)     the Secretary of Transportation;

(vi)    the Secretary of Energy;

(vii)   the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

(viii)  the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

(ix)    the Director of the Office of Personnel Management;

(x)     the Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council;

(xi)    the Assistant to the President and National Climate Advisor; and

(xii)   the heads of such other executive departments, agencies, and offices as the Co-Chairs may from time to time invite to participate.

(e)  The Co-Chairs may coordinate subgroups consisting of Task Force members or their designees, as appropriate.

Sec. 4.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

November 15, 2021.

 

State Elections Code only requires it be “in writing”; Householder ignores organizers repeated requests to receive letter via email; refuses to answer questions, admit her mistake in second response letter

By Allen Payton

Antioch City Clerk Ellie Householder, a political ally of Mayor Lamar Thorpe, has once again chosen to mail her printed response letter to proponents of his recall, further delaying the signature gathering. On Friday, Nov. 19, 2021, organizer Kathy Cabrera was informed that Householder had mailed her response letter This is the third time the city clerk has chosen to do so. (See related article)

It was on the 10th day since they submitted their recall petition for the third time, which is the legal limit for Householder’s response.

The second time the city clerk was due to provide her response letter to the petition on Oct. 21, fellow organizer and former Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen, who earned the advanced, professional designation of Master Municipal Clerk from the International Institute of Municipal Clerks, emailed Householder, writing, “In accordance with Elections Code 11042, the lead proponent, Kathy Cabrera, will pick up the Elections Official’s response to the Recall Petition of Lamar Thorpe.” He further shared the language from that code section.

In an email response that same day, Householder, who has not yet earned the lesser designation of Certified Municipal Clerk wrote, “For clarification, I received the copies of the petition and proof of publication in the Clerk’s office on the 3rd floor. I even opened the door for Ms. Cabrera when she arrived. Further, your understanding of EC11042 (b) is incorrect. In accordance with section (b), the petition response letter was sent in writing today via certified mail. Please find the attached receipt confirming the petition response letter was mailed today.” (The designation of MPP Householder uses in her email correspondence refers to her Master in Public Policy degree.)

However, the state’s Elections Code section 11042 (b) only requires, as both Simonsen and Householder pointed out that, “The elections official…shall…notify the proponents in writing of his or her finding.”

Following is the complete subsection they referenced.

Elections Code Section 11042 “(b) At the time of the filing of the two blank copies of the petition, the proponents shall also file proof of publication of the notice of intention, if the notice of intention was published, or an affidavit of posting of the notice of intention, if the notice of intention was posted.  The elections official or, in the case of a recall of a state officer, the Secretary of State, shall, within 10 days of receiving the blank copies of the petition, notify the proponents in writing of his or her finding.”

Questions for Householder Go Unanswered

A voicemail was left on Householder’s cell phone Friday afternoon and an email was sent to her Friday night asking why she mailed the response letter instead of emailing it, as Cabrera has repeatedly asked Householder, including in emails sent on Sept. 27, Nov. 2, 3, 4 and 16. Emails_Cabrera Householder

Additional questions were asked of Householder in the Friday night email, including, “can you please provide the requirement that ‘in writing’ means on a physical piece of paper to support your reasoning? Also, where does it require you to mail your response letter? If it must be printed on a piece of paper, couldn’t you have called Ms. Cabrera and let her know she could meet you or your staff at the City Clerk’s office for one of you to hand it to her the day you issued it? If so, why didn’t you instead of making her and the other recall proponents wait two or three more days to receive it in the mail?”

Householder was also asked, “Did it really take you and/or your staff 10 days to review their petition? If so, what took so long? Asking again, why couldn’t you follow the petition template provided by the County Clerk’s office that was used for your recall, instead of the template provided by the California Secretary of State’s office? Finally, will you admit to making a mistake in your last response letter requiring them to provide the names of the Top Funders when they have yet to form a campaign committee?”

Householder did not respond prior to publication time on Saturday afternoon.

Cabrera expects to receive Householder’s response letter by Monday, Nov. 22, almost two months after Thorpe was served with his recall notice on Sept. 24. (See related article)

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

$2 million in improvements including plaza and Leo Fontana Fountain still under construction

By Allen Payton

The Antioch City Council Chambers renovation is finally complete. After spending about $1.5 million, the City invites the public to join the council and staff on Monday, November 22, 2021, from 5:00 – 6:00 PM for a ribbon cutting ceremony.

According to the various bids for the council chambers, walkway, plaza and Leo Fontana Fountain, the costs for renovations totals about $2 million and construction began in 2019. The plaza and fountain are still under construction which began earlier, this year.

Improvements

According to Swatt | Miers Architects, hired by the city council for the renovation redesign, “The City of Antioch has long been proud of their public buildings including the Police Facility, Animal Services Facility, and Prewett Family Park — all designed by Swatt | Miers Architects partner George Miers. So, when it came time to renovate their 1980’s Council Chamber, they awarded the commission to SMA.

This project included both the interior renovation of the existing Council Chamber and the enclosure of an existing open-air breezeway that connects the City Hall to the Council Chamber.

Designed in 1980 by Mackinley, Winnaker and McNeil Architects, this well-used 3,083 SF, stand-alone facility was long overdue in meeting current code and modern functional requirements including ADA, audio-visual/closed circuit TV, modern lighting/energy design and acoustical attenuation. Additionally, public restrooms had not been provided in the Council Chamber structure. Rather, the public needed to leave the building via a covered walkway and use the main City Hall restrooms. Aside from the inconvenience, security was a significant City concern. Operating on a limited budget, the following design features were implemented;

• The existing 450 SF covered walkway was converted into an enclosed interior Entry Vestibule linking City Hall and Council Chambers.
• The existing semi-circular seating layout was redesigned to meet ADA accessibility and related requirements for all public, staff and Council member seating.
• A comprehensive lighting design focusing on user and TV broadcast needs.
• A comprehensive AV/TV broadcast design.
• New seating, acoustical wall panels and floor finishes.
• New dais, speaker podium and staff seating casework.
• A new acoustical wood ceiling featuring a unique, tilted plane above the dais designed to enhance both acoustics and lighting.
• Redirection of existing axial public entrance to the sides.”

Antioch City Hall and Council Chambers are located at 200 H Street between W. 2nd and W. 3rd Streets in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown.

 

Unanimous vote by trustees; all visitors, including vendors and subcontractors, required to complete health assessment prior to visiting a 4CD facility.

By Timothy Leung, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa Community College District

At their September 8, 2021, meeting, the Contra Costa Community College District (4CD) Governing Board passed a resolution on a unanimous vote establishing a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for all employees, and students who attend at least one in-person class or visits a 4CD facility or campus. All visitors, including vendors and subcontractors, are strongly encouraged to be vaccinated and will be required to complete a health assessment prior to visiting a 4CD facility. Ward 2 Trustee and Board Vic President Dr. Walters made the motion, and it was seconded by Ward 5 Trustee Fernando Sandoval. The vote was unanimous, including the student trustee. (See Item 21.A.)

The vaccine requirement became effective on Monday, November 1, 2021, in order to provide time for those currently unvaccinated to become fully vaccinated. The 4CD Governing Board determined that requiring vaccines for students and employees is necessary to ensure the health and safety of the 4CD community.

Employees and students can apply for a vaccination exception or deferral in the following situations: (a) medical excuse from receiving COVID-19 vaccine due to medical conditions or precaution; b) disability; (c) during the period of any pregnancy; or (d) religious objection based on a person’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practice or observance. When an exception or deferral has been approved, regular weekly COVID-19 testing with evidence of negative test results will be required for any unvaccinated person accessing District campuses or facilities.

4CD is evaluating various technology solutions that will track the vaccination status and test results in a secure system designed to protect the privacy of students and employees in accordance with applicable laws.

“In making this decision, 4CD reached out to its students, faculty, classified professionals, and managers and received overwhelming support to take this action,” said Chancellor Bryan Reece. “COVID-19 and its many variants will be with us for a while, so we must take prudent steps like this one so we can continue providing face-to-face instruction and services for our students, while ensuring we have a safe place to learn and work for our students and staff.”

4CD continues to monitor and adhere to health guidelines from federal, state and local health authorities, and advocates vaccination is the most effective way to prevent transmission and limit COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths.

Visit 4CD’s website at https://www.4cd.edu/covid19/index.html for more information.

About the College District

The Contra Costa Community College District (4CD) is one of the largest multi-college community college districts in California. The 4CD serves a population of 1,019,640 people, and its boundaries encompass all but 48 of the 734-square-mile land area of Contra Costa County. 4CD is home to Contra Costa College in San Pablo, Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill, Los Medanos College in Pittsburg, as well as educational centers in Brentwood and San Ramon. The District headquarters is located in downtown Martinez. For more information visit www.4cd.edu.

Endorse Map D keeping their districts mostly the same

Antioch remains split but along different lines

County receives $7.4 million more in federal American Rescue Plan Act funds

By Daniel Borsuk

With scant public testimony and only three complete community map submissions, during their meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 9, Contra Costa Supervisors decided to move forward with the 2021 redistricting effort by selecting Map D as the preferred alternative. It creates proposed supervisorial boundaries that will be in place for the next 10 years. CCCBOS Redistricting 2021 NOV 9 presentation

With the clock ticking for supervisors to wrap up the federally mandated redistricting effort by Dec. 15, county officials have not received an abundance of public input at public hearings and workshops on proposed supervisorial maps, but after supervisors again heard meager public input on the proposed maps, the elected officials decided to move forward to comply with federal law.

At the end of day, of the four maps proposed by county staff and the three complete alternative maps submitted by the public, supervisors chose Map D mainly because it presents the fewest revisions from the current districts. However, it offers districts with the greatest deviation of 9.77% in population between districts of all four maps offered by county staff. It only splits up the cities of Concord, Antioch and Walnut Creek.

Impacts

The chosen map results in Districts 3 and 5 with the least population, 11,568 and 11,425 fewer residents than average, respectively, and Districts 2 and 4 with the most population of 11,264 and 9,273 greater than average. So, Districts 3 and 5 Supervisors will represent about 21,000 to 23,000 fewer residents than Districts 2 and 4. District 1 will have the lowest deviation from average population of just 2,455 residents or 1.05%.

Map D keeps Antioch split in two between Districts 3 and 5, as the city currently is, but along different streets. This time the districts are split along Somersville Road and Auto Center Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way.

It moves Alamo, Blackhawk and Tassajara Valley from the current District 3 into District 2, allowing them to join the rest of the San Ramon Valley.

It reunites Pinole moving a portion from the current District 5 into District 1 in West County.

It keeps the Rossmoor community of Walnut Creek split from the rest of that city, and leaves it in District 2, while the rest of the city will be in District 4.

The map also shifts a portion of Concord from District 4 into District 5.

District 4 Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, who announced she will not seek re-election next year, liked Map D because it presents the “least intrusion into Concord.”  District 4 would also pick up the Morgan Territory area.

“If I could have all of Antioch I would,” said Board Chair Burgis.

District 1 Supervisor John Gioia, whose seat is also up for election next year, acknowledged with Map D his district cannot go beyond Pinole and El Sobrante. The neighboring and nearby communities of Hercules and Crockett will be fully represented by District 5 Supervisor Federal Glover.

Alternative Maps

There were only 12 community submissions with eight complete maps and four community of interest maps, using the county’s online mapping tool. Two of the complete maps were submitted by one person and three by another, So, only five people submitted complete, alternative maps.  CCCBOS Redistricting 2021 Community Submission Maps Oct05&19    CCCBOS Redistricting 2021 Community Submission Maps Nov09

Two of the complete maps offered total population deviations between the districts of 10.55% and 13.38%, which is greater than the 10% maximum deviation legally allowed. The population of each district can only be 5% greater or lesser than average. The other five maps split up communities of interest

The community submission of a complete map of the five districts, by the Contra Costa Herald, complied with the population deviation requirement of no greater or fewer than 5% from average. The map offers districts with the least population deviation of just 1.67% compared to the four maps proposed by county staff, while respecting both city and community boundaries, except for Concord and Antioch, the county’s largest cities. In general, the Contra Costa Herald map uses major city streets as the dividing lines, such as A Street in Antioch, and the districts are as compact as possible.

County Receives $7.4 million in American Rescue Plan Act Funds

Supervisors learned additional federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds will be heading to county coffers in ensuing months after $7.4 million have been spent during the first quarter of 2021.

The county Employment and Human Services Department has received $4,694,377, the county Health Services Department has received $2,604,182 and the Department of Conservation and Development has received $90,215, said assistant County Administrative Officer Tim Elway.

Through Sept. 30, county departments spent $71.6 million ARPA funds for rental assistance services. The Health Services Department submitted an expenditure of $20.9 million for pandemic responses.

Last August, the County Administrator’s Office had identified $317,327.304 in ARPA funds allocated to the county. Of that amount, $127,606.231 had been received by the county and represents two of the largest funding sources for the county – $112,029,451 for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and $15,576,780 for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program.

Hire New Director of Child Support Services from San Joaquin County

Supervisors voted 5-0 to hire San Joaquin County Director of Child Support Services Lori Cruz as the new Contra Costa County Director of Child Support Services at an annual salary of $345,796 of which $56,489 are pension costs.

Cruz, a California licensed attorney, who holds a Juris Doctor from Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, and a Bachelor of Arts Political Science and Print Journalism from the University of Southern California, has served as the Director of Child Support Services in San Joaquin County, the same county where Contra Costa County Administrator Monica Nina was county administrator until her appointment late last year.

Cruz replaces the current director of child support services Melinda Self, who is retiring on Dec. 31, 2021.

Upon accepting the supervisors’ hiring, Ms. Cruz said, “I can bring my 31 years of child support experience to Contra Costa County and bring positive outcomes to your constituents.”

Cruz, who has been a member of the California State Bar since 1989, has served as director of San Joaquin County Child Support Services from April 2014 to present date. From June 2002 to April 2014, she was employed as the Deputy Director of Operations of the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department. During her career she developed programs to analyze departmental data to measure performance and effectiveness of services, leading a statewide effort to obtain significant data to measure performance and effectiveness of services, and leading a statewide effort to obtain a new funding model for local child support agencies.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

“Regarding Cornelius Johnson’s retirement, the highest ranking was lieutenant.” – David Ng, SFPD Senior Clerk of Personnel

Further confirmed by SF Employees Retirement System

Mayor shares photo of Con Johnson’s captain’s badge and retirement card as proof

Thorpe, Johnson, city council members, staff refuse to provide resume; Johnson refuses to answer questions

By Allen Payton

On Monday, November 8, 2021 the San Francisco Police Department’s (SFPD) senior personnel clerk confirmed Cornelius “Con” Johnson, candidate for the position of Antioch interim city manager, did not retire as a captain, as Mayor Lamar Thorpe and city staff claim. He retired as a lieutenant, as has been reported by the Herald and other local media. (See related article)

The city staff report for the vote to appoint Johnson during Tuesday’s council meeting refers to Johnson as a retired captain. An announcement on his official Facebook page, Thorpe also referred to Johnson as a retired captain.

Questions were sent to the mayor on Saturday asking, if Johnson retired as a Lieutenant III how could he have been a captain over that department? Or was he the acting captain?

In response Thorpe wrote, “He’s a retired CAPTAIN, stop misinforming the public with information you have not verified.”

The mayor also shared a photo of an SFPD captain’s badge and Johnson’s retirement card as proof of his rank. The card appears to have been issued by SFPD and includes the chief’s name, title and signature.

Additional questions were then asked of Thorpe, including, when was Johnson promoted to the position of captain? What date and for how long? The mayor was also asked if Johnson went back to work after July 1, 2016 and get promoted to captain and to provide the documentation to back up his claim about Johnson retiring as a captain. This is the second time Thorpe has referred to Johnson as a retired police captain. The first time was when the mayor introduced Johnson as a member of Thorpe’s Transition Advisory Team, last December. (See related article)

The mayor was also asked why a press release wasn’t sent out and why Johnson’s resume wasn’t included for the public to have. Finally, he was asked for personal information about Johnson, including how long he’s lived in Antioch, his wife’s name and if they have any children, as part of the introduction to the community, or for Johnson to contact this reporter to provide it

Thorpe did not respond to any of the additional questions nor provide a copy of Johnson’s resume.

SFPD Personnel Staff Confirms Johnson Retired as Lieutenant

In a phone call with David Ng, Senior Clerk of Personnel for the SFPD Monday, he said, “regarding Cornelius Johnson’s retirement, the highest ranking was lieutenant. The system shows lieutenant. The job code is Q62 which is lieutenant.”

Asked about the 2016 retirement system report showing Johnson retired as Lieutenant III, Ng responded, “There are different levels, but my system doesn’t show which level he was at.”

Asked about the card showing he’s a retired captain, Ng said, “I don’t know anything about that.”

He then offered to have the head of the personnel department, Lt. Patrick McCormick, provide any additional details. An effort to reach McCormick on Monday was unsuccessful before publication time.

In addition, an email was sent to the San Francisco Employees Retirement System (SFERS) Monday morning asking for them to verify at what rank Mr. Johnson retired. They were also asked if he later returned to work for SFPD after July 1, 2016 and was subsequently promoted to captain, and if so, when did he retire, again. No response was received prior to publication time.

11/9/21 UPDATE 2: Stephen Worsfold, Administrative Analyst and media contact for the SFERS, responded on Tuesday, Nov. 9 further confirming the information from the SFPD senior personnel clerk.

“I did ask our records to check on the retirement of the person in question and we have it listed as a Q62 which is Lieutenant III,” he said.

Regarding the number three, Worsfold replied, “you’ll have to ask SFPD what the difference is in numerical numbers.” As for the Q62 he said, “it could could be a job code.”

Transparent California Confirms Johnson’s Pension is Paid as Lieutenant

11/9/21 UPDATE 3: A search of the online website TransparentCalifornia.com, which contains public compensation records of current and retired government employees, shows Johnson’s pension from the SFERS was paid in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 as a Lieutenant III.

Questions for SF Police Chief William Scott

Information and questions were also sent to SF Police Chief William Scott Monday afternoon, including the photo of Johnson’s badge and retirement card asking if he wasn’t ever promoted to captain, why would he have been issued the card showing he’s a retired captain and if that’s something the SFPD does for retired personnel, showing their highest rank, even if it was only in an acting capacity.

In addition, he was asked to confirm if either what the Antioch city staff report or Thorpe wrote about Johnson’s experience is correct or both.

The following automated response was received at 3:36 pm Monday: “Your email has been received by the general email account for the Chief’s Office of the San Francisco Police Department. This account is monitored during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm PST.”

Questions for Antioch City Staff

Questions were then emailed Monday afternoon to Antioch Administrative Services Director Nickie Mastay, City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, City Manager Ron Bernal and Assistant City Manager Rosanna Bayon Moore asking for a copy of Johnson’s resume that was shared with city council members during their meeting, last week. They were also asked, why it wasn’t included in the staff report for the Interim City Manager item on tomorrow night’s meeting agenda for the public to read so they can provide more informed comments before the vote.

Also, they were asked about the discrepancy in what the city staff report included about Johnson’s experience with SFPD and what Thorpe shared in the announcement on his official Facebook page.

Regarding Mr. Johnson’s work experience, the staff report reads: “Collaborating with the Department of Health, Department of Youth Services and Juvenile Hall Center developing, planning, administering, overseeing the San Francisco Police Department city-wide Violence Intervention Program with a budget of $20 million and a staff of 60 mid managers and supervisor.” But in Mayor Thorpe’s announcement about tomorrow night’s vote, he wrote: “Having 17 years of managerial experience with the City and County of San Francisco, most recently as a captain in the San Francisco Police Department’s Field Operations Bureau, Johnson managed a $300 million budget and oversaw 600 staff members.”

They were asked if what the mayor shared is correct when he replied, “Both are correct” and if so, why what he shared wasn’t included in the staff report as it’s much more impressive with 10 times the staff members and 15 times the budget size.

Finally, the city staff members were asked who on city staff or the council did the vetting and a background check of Mr. Johnson and if any of them have the dates when he held either position of acting captain or captain.

11/9/21 UPDATE 1: A call was made and a formal Public Records Act was sent to Attorney Smith, Tuesday morning asking for a copy of Johnson’s resume that was presented to the council members during their meeting, last week. Another call was made at 2:55 p.m. to Smith’s office asking for it, again.

Questions for Johnson

Similar information and questions were sent via email to Johnson, Monday afternoon asking, “if you weren’t ever promoted to captain, why would you have been issued the card in the photo showing you’re a retired captain? Is that something the SFPD does for retired personnel, showing their highest rank, even if it was only in an acting capacity? Or did you go back to work for SFPD after you retired in July 2016 and were then promoted to captain, and retired again?”

Regarding the differences in his experience reported by Antioch city staff and the mayor, Johnson was asked which is correct or are both, and what dates they occurred. Finally, Johnson was asked to share personal information about his background, family and where he was born and grew up. He did not respond to multiple attempts to reach him for comment and to answer questions.

Questions for Council Members

Questions were also asked of all five Antioch council members late Saturday night. They included, “who did the vetting and background check of Mr. Johnson, including contacting the City of San Francisco Human Resources Department and SFPD to verify what he’s told you about his experience which includes the start and end dates of his various positions? Was it one of you or a city staff member?

“Did he provide you with his resume which shows you that information? If so, can you please provide a copy of it? If not, why wouldn’t you require that of an applicant for interim city manager, how was the information about his background shared in the staff report and the mayor’s announcement on his official Facebook page obtained and did you merely take Mr. Johnson at his word?

“Did you verify his education with the University of San Francisco and require him to provide a copy of his diplomas? What is the normal practice when the council hires the city manager and city attorney?”

None of the councilmembers responded by publication time.

Questions for University of San Francisco

11/9/21 UPDATE 4: An email was sent to the University of San Francisco Registrar’s Office on Tuesday afternoon, to verify information about Johnson’s higher education shared in the Antioch city staff report. They were also asked his GPA for both degrees and if he earned any honors, as well.

Personal Information from Independent Background Check

11/9/21 UPDATE 5: Information from a background check, shared with the Herald Thursday afternoon by an Antioch resident who chose to not be identified, shows Johnson is 61 years old and worked as a licensed, private security guard from Oct. 2016 to Oct. 2020. He is or was a part owner with his ex-wife of three businesses, including Siafu Enterprises, Inc. formed in Sept. 2017, Pyramid Security Services, LLC formed in 2008, and MJ Investment Group, LLC formed in Nevada in 2006. But information on the latter two show they are no longer active. Johnson has lived in Antioch and owned a home, here, since at least 2003 and possibly since 2001.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Watching Meeting and Making Public Comments

The meeting begins at 7:00 pm and can be viewed at https://www.antiochca.gov/live_stream, on Comcast Channel 24, or AT&T U-Verse Channel 99. Members of the public wishing to provide public comment may do so one of the following ways (#2 pertains to the Zoom Webinar):

1. Fill out an online speaker card by 3:00 p.m. the day of the Council Meeting located at: https://www.antiochca.gov/speaker_card.
2. Provide oral public comments during the meeting by clicking the following link to register in advance to access the meeting via Zoom Webinar: https://www.antiochca.gov/speakers

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

– When the Mayor announces public comments, click the “raise hand” feature in Zoom. For instructions on using the “raise hand” feature in Zoom, visit: https://www.antiochca.gov/raise_hand. When calling into the meeting using the Zoom Webinar telephone number, press *9 on your telephone keypad to “raise your hand”. Please ensure your Zoom client is updated so staff can enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak.

3. Email comments to cityclerk@ci.antioch.ca.us by 3:00 p.m. the day of the Council Meeting. The comment will be read into the record at the meeting (350 words maximum, up to 3 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor). IMPORTANT: Identify the agenda item in the subject line of your email if the comment is for Announcement of Community Events, Public Comment, or a specific Agenda Item number. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during “Public Comments”.

All emails received by 3:00 p.m. the day of the Council Meeting will be entered into the record for the meeting.

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

Member of mayor’s Transition Advisory Team

Decision reached during closed session but not reported out

“If appointed, Johnson will become the first African-American City Manager in the history of the city of Antioch.” – Mayor Lamar Thorpe

By Allen Payton

The Antioch City Council will vote on appointing resident Cornelius “Con” Johnson, a retired San Francisco Police lieutenant, as interim city manager, Tuesday night. Current City Manager Ron Bernal is retiring at the end of the year. The council reached the decision to hire Johnson during their special closed session meeting, last Tuesday morning. But following that meeting, City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith said “no reportable action was taken.”  (See related article)

Johnson is a member of Mayor Lamar Thorpe’s Transition Advisory Team, assigned to work as co-chair of police reform with City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith. (See related article)

Johnson was also in attendance during Thorpe’s most recent press conference with Interim Police Chief Tony Morefield on Oct. 21, 2021 about the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Public Safety Partnership  with the Antioch Police Department. (See related article)

Johnson earned a Master of Public Administration and Bachelor of Public Administration from the University of San Francisco. He also possesses a Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) Management Certificate. Johnson’s Linkedin account only shows he is a “Law Enforcement Instructor”.

The staff report on the agenda item offers the following information about his background:

“Mr. Johnson has extensive managerial experience. He is a former San Francisco Police Captain. Some of his career accomplishments include:

• Collaborating with various departments in creating the first African American Community Police Relations Oversight Board, San Francisco Police Department
• Developing and implementing Cultural Awareness, Cultural Competency and Racial Bias in police training for staff.
• Providing monthly updates to the Board of Supervisors, and Police Commission relating to San Francisco Police Department community-policing strategies and efforts.
• Collaborating with the Department of Health, Department of Youth Services and Juvenile Hall Center developing, planning, administering, overseeing the San Francisco Police Department city-wide Violence Intervention Program with a budget of $20 million and a staff of 60 mid managers and supervisor.
• Collaborating with criminologists to develop, implement, and manage the first of its kind gun violence reduction initiative ‘Operation Cease Fire’.”

Thorpe’s Comments

In a Friday afternoon post on his official Facebook page, Thorpe offered his comments about Johnson’s background and expected appointment, providing different information than what is in the city staff report: “Today, the City of Antioch has announced that Cornelius Johnson has been nominated to serve as Interim City Manager.

Having 17 years of managerial experience with the City and County of San Francisco, most recently as a captain in the San Francisco Police Department’s Field Operations Bureau, Johnson managed a $300 million budget and oversaw 600 staff members.

Having risen up the ranks within the San Francisco Police Department, Johnson was the architect of San Francisco’s community policing efforts having established San Francisco’s Director of Community Policing position within the police department. Throughout his career, Johnson has devoted his career to establishing strong bonds between his agencies and the residents he has served.

The City Council will vote on Johnson’s contract at their Tuesday, November 9th meeting. If appointed, Johnson will become the first African-American City Manager in the history of the city of Antioch.”

Question About Johnson’s Rank

However, according to the SF Police Department, Johnson retired as a Lieutenant III in 2016. A San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System report dated August 1, 20216 reads, “Johnson, Cornelius H 07/01/2016 Police Lieutenant III POLICE DEPARTMENT”.  He did serve as Acting Captain in 2015 according to a SFGate news report. The position of lieutenant is not part of the SFPD command staff, which includes the positions of captain and above.

According to a 2002 IndyBay.org news report, Johnson served as a member of the African-American Community Relations Board, in the role of the SFPD’s police liaison. A 2011 video shows him talking tough with high school students as part of a Scared Stiff presentation, warning them about teen pregnancy. He said, “I’ll tell my daughter straight to her face, ‘romance without any fire dance is a nuisance. Make sure this cat’s got a job’. You’re saying the State of California is going to be your baby’s daddy? You’re insane.”

Multiple attempts to reach Johnson for comment Friday evening were unsuccessful prior to publication time Saturday morning. He was also asked if he’d ever been promoted to captain.

Questions for City Attorney, Thorpe and Council Members

Questions were emailed after business hours on Friday asking about this past Tuesday’s special closed session council meeting: “If no action was taken during the closed session on Tuesday, in which the city council met with more than one candidate for interim city manager, how was it decided that Con Johnson would be the finalist for your vote during next Tuesday’s meeting? Did you, as mayor, make the choice and place his name on the agenda, Lamar? Or was it a ‘head nod’, consensus-type thing without a formal vote that occurred during closed session? Because if so, isn’t that an action that should have been reported since a consensus was reached among council members of the candidate to be voted on?”

Additional questions were asked about the items regarding the matter on next Tuesday’s meeting agenda: “If the vote is going to occur in public, what will be occurring during the closed session item “2) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT – TITLE: INTERIM CITY MANAGER. This closed session is authorized pursuant to Government Code section 54957”? The staff report reads “the cost of the Interim City Manager position will be $xxx,xxx of this amount, $xxx,xxx will be the cost to the General Fund.” How much will he be paid? Or is that one of the things that will be negotiated in closed session in item 3)?

They and Johnson were both asked for a copy of his resume to provide more information than what is in the staff report.

11/6/21 UPDATE:  An email was sent to Thorpe, Saturday morning Nov. 6, asking about the discrepancy in the information between what was in the staff report and what he posted on his Facebook page. “Which is correct? Or are they both correct and the staff report failed to include the additional information you provided?” he was asked. Thorpe responded simply, “both are correct.”

Ogorchock: Decision Reached in Closed Session

“The mayor did not make the choice,” Ogorchock said when reached for comment.

“We discussed the candidates and there was a decision made,” she added about the closed session meeting. “I don’t know why the city attorney said there was no action.”

Barbanica Wants To Hear From Public

“I’m receiving comments from the public about the appointment,” Barbanica said. “I look forward to receiving more comments before the vote Tuesday night. If people want to reach out to me that would be great. I’m going to do what is best for the city. But I really want public input.”

No responses were received from any of the others as of publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

No answers to questions of why the morning meeting and urgency for choosing an interim since Bernal isn’t retiring until end of year, how many candidates nor who they are

By Allen Payton

The Antioch City Council will hold a special 9:00 a.m. closed session meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2021, to discuss the recruitment of a new city manager and to negotiate with a potential interim city manager candidate. ACC110221 Special Mtg

The public can make comments on both items before the council adjourns into the closed session. The mayor will report out what actions were taken following the conclusion of their closed-door meeting.

Questions were sent to the mayor, council members, City Manager Ron Bernal, Assistant City Manager Rosanna Bayon Moore and City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith. They were asked, so that the public can provide informed public comment for your closed session meeting next Tuesday, who is the candidate with whom you will be negotiating for the Interim City Manager position, please?

They were also asked if it is Assistant City Manager Rosanna Bayon Moore, is it, as has been rumored, City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, or someone else. Additional questions were also asked of Bernal, Mayor Lamar Thorpe, and Councilmembers Lori Ogorchock and Mike Barbanica why hold the meeting at 9:00 a.m. when most people would be at work, what the urgency was and why the  meeting couldn’t be held during their regular meeting the following Tuesday (since Bernal isn’t retiring until the end of the year). They were also asked if Bernal was leaving that day and using his accrued vacation time. (See related article)

Both Ogorchock and Barbanica said they didn’t know how many candidates their were for the interim position, nor why the meeting was being held next Tuesday in the morning. But each of them said they couldn’t say anything more about the matter.

Smith was out of the office on Friday and attempts to reach the mayor, the other council members and Bernal were unsuccessful throughout Friday afternoon.

Viewing

Members of the public can watch the meeting at https://www.antiochca.gov/live_stream, on Comcast Channel 24, or AT&T U-Verse Channel 99.

Public Comments

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

1. Fill out an online speaker card by 7:00 a.m. the day of the Council Meeting located at:

1. Provide oral public comments during the meeting by clicking the following link to register in advance to access the meeting via Zoom Webinar: https://www.antiochca.gov/speakers

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

– When the Mayor announces public comments, click the “raise hand” feature in Zoom. For instructions on using the “raise hand” feature in Zoom, visit: https://www.antiochca.gov/raise_hand. When calling into the meeting using the Zoom Webinar telephone number, press *9 on your telephone keypad to “raise your hand”. Please ensure your Zoom client is updated so staff can enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak.

1. Email comments to cityclerk@ci.antioch.ca.us by 7:00 a.m. the day of the Council Meeting. The comment will be read into the record at the meeting (350 words maximum, up to 3 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor). IMPORTANT: Identify the agenda item in the subject line of your email if the comment is for Announcement of Community Events, Public Comment, or a specific Agenda Item number. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during “Public Comments”.

All emails received by 7:00 a.m. the day of the Council Meeting will be entered into the record for the meeting. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.