Some churches to participate in civil disobedience this Sunday and open for services.

“Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights”… “the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship” – 5/19/20 US DOJ letter to Gov. Newsom.

By Allen Payton

Yesterday, Monday, May 25, 2020 – Memorial Day, the day we honor and commemorate those who died for our freedoms, some of which are seriously limited, right now – California Governor Gavin Newsom issued guidelines for reopening places of worship. At first, I was hopeful that he was doing something good in response to President Trump’s directive to all the governors and the directive to California from U.S. Attorney General William Barr and the Department of Justice, last week.

But the guidelines don’t really allow most places of worship to reopen. Why? Because they’re too restrictive, limiting attendance to just 25% of building capacity or 100 people whichever is less. Plus, Newsom is leaving it up to each unelected county health officer to approve of the guidelines or not.

Now, it’s worse because they’re allowing more and more businesses to reopen – which is great – but not the churches. Our officials already considered all the vice serving businesses, including all the locations of the nation’s top abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, liquor stores, and marijuana dispensaries essential. But not the churches or other places of worship. And as of today, the governor said barber shops and hair salons can reopen.

Which part of “shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise” of religion and the other First Amendment right of freedom of peaceful assembly, don’t our officials get?

Civil Disobedience

Following in the footsteps of the black Christian ministers who led the efforts during the civil rights movement, it appears some churches will be participating in some civil disobedience with the ministers leading the effort for their rights, when they hold services this next Sunday, May 31st in defiance of state and local orders. Those in attendance will probably only be issued citations and the maximum fine is $1,000, which they can collectively fight. Plus, with $0 bail, right now none of them will go to jail. Most likely only the ministers will be cited and fined. But who knows? The Lord does and we will see just how far the government officials will take this and just how much they want to continue this fight.

Time to Elect New Leaders

It’s definitely time we elected only those who agree that places of worship are essential, not only to those who attend, but society as a whole, and will actually uphold their oaths of office, in which they swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Event the CDC recognized that in the statement for its Interim Guidance for Communities of Faith, unlike our governor in the statement included with his guidelines. The CDC wrote, “Millions of Americans embrace worship as an essential part of life. In addition, we note that while many types of gatherings are important for civic and economic well-being, religious worship has particularly profound significance to communities and individuals, including as a right protected by the First Amendment. State and local authorities are reminded to take this vital right into account when establishing their own re-opening plans.”

What did the governor include in the statement about his guidelines? Just more warnings about how public gatherings can cause more deaths. That statement includes, “There have been multiple outbreaks in a range of workplaces, indicating that workers are at risk of acquiring or transmitting COVID-19 infection. Examples of these workplaces include places of worship, long-term care facilities, prisons, food production, warehouses, meat processing plants, and grocery stores.”

“Further, it is strongly recommended that places of worship continue to facilitate remote services and other related activities for those who are vulnerable to COVID19 including older adults and those with co-morbidities. Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing and group recitation negate the risk-reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing,” Newsom’s statement continues.

Nothing about our First Amendment rights which should be protected or that corporate worship or even churches being essential to at least some Californians or society as a whole.

Legal Efforts

We also need to support the legal efforts of those suing the state and governor to get the courts to force him to allow the churches to reopen. One way you can do that is by supporting the Center for American Liberty, based in San Francisco and led by my friend, attorney Harmeet Dhillon and her fellow attorney, Mark Meuser, a former Contra Costa resident. Read about their cases and make a contribution, here – https://libertycenter.org/pf/covid-19-litigation/.

Another lawsuit by churches in California against Newsom and the state, which was joined by Dhillon, lost last week at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 decision of a three-judge panel. Not surprising the judges who voted with the governor were appointed by Clinton and Obama, and the one judge that voted with the churches was appointed by Trump.

“These are emergency appeals,” Dhillon explained on Monday. “We filed for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court” in the recent case before the 9th Circuit.

“The DOJ sent a letter to the governor that his policies were discriminatory against churches,” she continued. “Today’s guidelines are still limiting. They’re totally arbitrary. There is no limit of 100 people for any retail establishment. Retail has a 50% capacity limit for some and none for others.”

“To tell people how they can worship, this is more unconstitutional and very problematic,” Dhillon added.

DOJ Letter to Newsom

In the DOJ letter to Newsom about “several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship” due to the governor’s stay-at-home order, as well as “documents relating to the California Reopening Plan” it states “Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.” USDOJ 5.19.20 Ltr. to Hon. Gavin Newson

“Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” the letter continues.

“Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3” of Newsom’s reopening plan, the letter explains. “However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified” in the decision of another case “in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship.”

“Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest…” the letter states.

It then refers to the recent case before the 9th Circuit and states, “Other decisions around the country…make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done.”

“We believe…that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.”

An email has been sent to the DOJ asking for their views on Newsom’s guidelines and if they comply with the May 19th letter. (Please check back later for updates to this column.)

Time for Action

It’s time for action and to stop living in fear, my friends. The governor’s guidelines are too restrictive and continue to clearly violate our God-given – the meaning of “unalienable” – and constitutionally protected rights of both freedom of religion and assembly. Until Newsom complies with the directives from the federal government, churches should feel free to reopen within the guidelines applied to nonreligious activities and businesses.

As the DOJ letter states, “Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines.” Local churches can do the same. We shall see if any actions are taken against the ministers and those who attend this Sunday’s services.

 

DOJ Letter to Governor Newsom

               U.S. Department of Justice 

Civil Rights Division

 

 

________________________________________________________________________________

 

Office of the Assistant Attorney General                                                                   Washington, D.C. 20530

May 19, 2020

 

The Honorable Gavin Newsom

Governor of California

1303 10th Street, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

 

Dear Governor Newsom:

We are writing to you to raise several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship in Executive Orders N-33-20 and N-60-20 and documents relating to the California Reopening Plan.

Of course, we recognize the duty that you have to protect the health and safety of Californians in the face of a pandemic that is unprecedented in our lifetimes. You and other leaders around the country are called on to balance multiple competing interests and evaluate the constantly changing information available to you about COVID-19, and make your best judgment on courses of action.

Attorney General William P. Barr recently issued a statement on Religious Practice and Social Distancing, in conjunction with a Mississippi case in which the Department of Justice participated regarding restrictions on worship. In the statement, the Attorney General emphasized the need to practice social distancing to control the spread of COVID-19. He also noted that temporary restrictions that would be unacceptable in normal circumstances may be justified. But, “even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers. Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity.” Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Laws that are not both neutral toward religion and generally applicable are invalid unless the government can prove that they further a compelling interest and are pursued through the least restrictive means possible. Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest, absent the most compelling reasons.

Executive Order N-33-20 (March 19, 2020) ordered Californians to remain at home except to engage in authorized necessary activities as laid out by the Public Health Officer at the time and as modified going forward. The Public Health Officer’s April 28 “essential workforce” list does not appear to treat religious activities and comparable nonreligious activities the same.

The list includes “faith-based services” but only if “provided through streaming or other technologies.” In-person religious services are thus apparently prohibited even if they adhere to social distancing standards.

The list of nonreligious workers who are not so restricted by the Executive Order and essential workforce list when telework “is not practical” is expansive. For example, the list includes “Workers supporting the entertainment industries, studios, and other related establishments, provided they follow covid-19 public health guidance around social distancing.” Likewise, “workers supporting ecommerce” are included as essential, regardless of whether the product they are selling and shipping are life-preserving products or not. This facially discriminates against religious exercise. California has not shown why interactions in offices and studios of the entertainment industry, and in-person operations to facilitate nonessential ecommerce, are included on the list as being allowed with social distancing where telework is not practical, while gatherings with social distancing for purposes of religious worship are forbidden, regardless of whether remote worship is practical or not.

Even more pronounced unequal treatment of faith communities is evident in California’s Reopening Plan, as set forth in Executive Order N-60-20 (May 4, 2020), and in the documents the California Department of Public Health produced pursuant to it, including the “Resilience Roadmap” (https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap/) and “County Variance Attestations” (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Local-Variance-Attestations.aspx). Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3. However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets, and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified in the Lukumi decision in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship. While it is true that social distancing requirements applied to places of worship may inevitably result in much smaller congregations than some faith groups would like, in our experience with other controversies around the country, many places of worship are quite content to operate at 15-25% of capacity in a way that allows for social distancing between family groups.

The Department of Justice does not seek to dictate how States such as California determine what degree of activity and personal interaction should be allowed to protect the safety of their citizens. However, we are charged with upholding the Constitution and federal statutory protections for civil rights. Whichever level of restrictions you adopt, these civil rights protections mandate equal treatment of persons and activities of a secular and religious nature.

We recognize that three U.S. District Courts have denied Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO’s) sought by plaintiffs against Executive Order N-33-20, Abiding Place Ministries v. Wooten, No. 3:20-cv-00683 (S.D. Cal. April 10, 2020) (no written opinion); Gish v. Newsom, No. 5:20-CV-755 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020); Cross Culture Christian Ctr. v. Newsom, No. 2:20-CV-00832 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2020), and one denied a TRO against the Reopening Plan, which is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 3:20-cv-865 (S.D. Cal. May 15, 2020) (oral transcript ruling). These TRO decisions do not justify California’s actions. The Abiding Place, Gish, and Cross Culture TRO decisions do not address the Stage 2 reopening, and South Bay United Pentecostal does not describe why worship services can be distinguished from schools, restaurants, factories or other places Stage 2 permits people to come together. Other decisions around the country have followed Lukumi to make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done. See, e.g., Robert v. Neace, No. 20-5465 (6th Cir. May 11, 2020).

Religion and religious worship continue to be central to the lives of millions of Americans. This is true now more than ever. Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines. We believe, for the reasons outlined above, that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you wish to discuss further, please contact United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California McGregor Scott at

(916) 554-2730 or mcgregor.scott@usdoj.gov.

Sincerely,

           Eric S. Dreiband

                            Assistant Attorney General

               Civil Rights Division

 

McGregor W. Scott

United States Attorney

Eastern District of California

 

Nicola T. Hanna

United States Attorney

Central District of California

 

David L. Anderson

United States Attorney

Northern District of California

 

Robert S. Brewer

United States Attorney

Southern District of California

 

cc: The Honorable Xavier Becerra

Attorney General of California

The Clerk-Recorder is now offering marriage licenses and civil marriage ceremonies online for County residents. Clerk-Recorder staff perform the civil ceremonies using Zoom or FaceTime.

“June is traditionally a month of many weddings,” Deborah Cooper, County Clerk-Recorder said. “We are pleased to offer our constituents a creative new method to be married during this crisis.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently issued an Executive Order permitting the issuance of marriage licenses and the conduct of remote civil wedding ceremonies via teleconferencing technologies.

At least one of the parties to the marriage must be a Contra Costa County resident. The couple must appear together on the video and be physically present within the State of California. Invited guests may join in to view the ceremony. No additional software is required for the license or the ceremony, but the couple must complete the forms in advance of the ceremony. A computer, tablet, or cell phone with a microphone/camera and an internet connection is required.

Marriage service appointments are currently available Tuesday through Thursday, during the month of June. If couples would like more information or to schedule an appointment, email marriages@cr.cccounty.us or call (925) 335-7900.

Dear Editor:

Please run this scathing letter that I wrote about my terrible experience in not getting a COVID-19 test late last week.

But the other part of the story is that it was not read into the record during Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. Instead it will be “shared” with the supervisors, according to Jami Napier, Chief Assistant Clerk to the BOS.

In an email response she wrote, “This email will be shared with the Board of Supervisors. We are not reading emails into the record at this time.”

I responded, “Shame on you!  The agenda states that written comments will be accepted before and during the meeting.  I feel that I am being marginalized by the county. I feel cheapened. I cannot even get a Covid test; and then you do this to me.  Written comments should also be read into the record. Bad!”

Board of Supervisors Chair Andersen:

The county is playing with the lives of citizens, especially seniors when the county announces free COVID-19 testing for anyone regardless of one’s health, and the county’s out of state telephone message service is unable to properly handle the avalanche of incoming calls. Shame on the county and the telephone service!

Thankfully neither I nor my wife have COVID_19 symptoms, but last Friday I was on the phone 7 hours futilely waiting to make an appointment to line up appointments for free COVID-19 tests.  No one answered my call.  Incredible!

Later that day I talked to Supervisor Federal Glover who confirmed with that the health department is swamped with calls and is working to resolve the issue. That’s all that he could do for me and my wife. What a bummer!

The problem is, what if someone like myself or my wife, really has COVID-19 symptoms?  What do they do then if they cannot make an appointment like I attempted to do?  I suppose the answers to those questions is, wait for one’s maker, death!

This situation is unacceptable. The county and supervisors should be held accountable and correct this problem now!

Sincerely,

Daniel & Leslie Borsuk  

Pittsburg

By Allen Payton

During a special meeting of the Antioch City Council on Friday night, May 1, 2020, Planning Commission Chair Kenny Turnage was removed from the commission on a unanimous, 5-0 vote to following his strong comments defending what he wrote on Facebook, last week, as well as the comments of over 90 members of the public. (See related articles, here and here).

The item was presented by City Attorney Thomas Smith,

“The legal standards required to remove a commissioner is a majority vote of the city council. Commission members serve at the pleasure of the council,” he said. “I did see some communications of a possibility of censure. It’s an official rebuke chastising the act of a city official. I haven’t found that censure has been used in the City of Antioch. That is one option out there, as well…. I want you to be aware of all your options.”

“We are here on this item with deliberations for some comments that were made on social media that have come to light,” Wright said.

“We have 92 emails that need to be read,” said City Clerk Arne Simonsen. “We might want to have a time limit on those.”

“I’d like to hear from Kenny Turnage, first,” Wright responded.

Turnage then offered his comments. (Following is a verbatim copy):

“To the Mayor and Council,

After many years of service to the City in both the private and public sectors, it is disheartening that you are considering removing me from the Planning Commission due to a personal opinion that I posted on my personal Facebook page. My personal opinion had nothing to do with the City or my position on the Planning Commission. So to try to somehow link them or create a nexus to further your political agendas is shameful.

My personal opinion was offered in an attempt to spark a debate, like I have done many times before. It is based on the theory of Ecological Balance which is science. Yes I do understand that it is a difficult topic and thus I prefaced it by stating that if people are unable to handle an alternative opinion to not read any further.

The idea of letting Nature run its course was practiced by Sweden and at first The World Health Organization was strictly against it! However, as of yesterday, The World Health Organization says we should learn from Sweden! Ironic, isn’t it?

This Virus is targeting certain sectors of the World. I did not decide these sectors or create this Virus. I merely spoke on what could potentially happen to those sectors plus others including myself. Yes, my analogies in hindsight could have been different to make the same point, for that I am sorry but hindsight is 20/20.

Being removed from the Planning Commission because my opinion is not liked or agreed with is not a fair reason to be removed. In fact, in a Country where we value free speech it’s unconscionable! It sends the message that only like-minded people can serve this City. That, in my opinion, is a very dangerous road for this Counsel to go down and everyone in this City should be very concerned. Having it viewed as offensive speech then targeting me with repercussion for this is a direct violation of my First Amendment Rights and should NOT happen under our Constitution!

At this time I would like to make a formal records request of all documents that pertain to this matter to include but not limited to e-mails, text messages, recorded phone conversations etc. between and amongst Council Members and City Staff related to my personal post and development of this agenda, and the subsequent recommendation to remove me from this position. The fact that during a Council Meeting a non-agendized item was discussed openly is a violation of the Brown Act. So yes, you may not like me expressing an opinion you do not like, but you have violated the law!

If you are going to punish someone for having an opinion other than yours then our Constitutional Republic is going to Die! I would like to say that at some point it would be nice if certain council members stop race baiting to further their political agendas. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Please hold yourself to at least the modicum of the standard you expect of the volunteers such as myself who are willing to try and help this City. Otherwise, I fear there is little hope for its future.

In closing its hard to believe that all of you have come to my house when I have opened my home at my own expense to do fundraisers for elderly, our youth and other at risk demographics. Now publicly you are taking these actions when you personally know me better. Its nice to see that opportunity lives here as long as you share the Councils opinion!

Respectfully,

Ken Turnage II”

Public Comments

The council agreed to reduce the time limit of the public comments to one minute each from the usual three minutes.

Two people called in with their comments.

“You have no business holding any kind of office in the United States of America,” said Leslie, a member of the county Mental Health Commission.

Gary Walker said “I’m kind of embarrassed I’m calling in on something that’s negatively reflecting our city. I wasn’t able to read his Facebook post. But I read the letter that the mayor had asked him to resign. I do agree…I have heard of censorship, as well. But I do believe you should continue along the path you’re moving.” His comments were cut short due to the time limit.

Written comments were read next, most of which were in favor of removing Turnage from his position.

Mary Dunrose wrote that he “needs to be removed…for sociopathic world views. He believes all seniors should be dead. He’s a…lawsuit case waiting to happen. The council needs to remove…this abomination of a human being.”

Sal Sbranti wrote, “I have known Ken Turnage since I joined a service club in Antioch in 2015. We donated a TV for the senior center…Ken put it up. I know this man. I respect this man. I believe Monica, Joy and Lamar feel he is a threat if he gets elected. That’s why Monica, Joy and Lamar are trying to get rid of him.”

Ron Zaragoza wrote, “Society has become much too quick to demonize each other. I say we spend more time honestly…listening to each other peacefully.”

Jack Bruckman wrote, “Our chair of the planning commission doesn’t get to have it both ways. If I have to watch what I write for my job, so should he.”

Charleen Rednour wrote, “I am horrified…obviously this man believes in Nazi genocide.”

Beverly Knight wrote, “When I was appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission I didn’t know to participate on boards and commissions for the City of Antioch you must give up your freedom of speech. Nor was I told the City of Antioch would scrutinize my social media posts. We do not represent the City of Antioch. We represent the community to the city. I believe you are infringing on his freedom of speech.”

“Once again, the City of Antioch is trying to punish a volunteer because they don’t agree with someone. While I don’t agree with what Mr. Turnage wrote…he was not writing as a city official. At least with Mr. Turnage you see what you get,” wrote one member of the public.

“Ken Turnage II is a very sick, despicable human being who needs counseling…send this mentally ill psychopath home, immediately,” wrote another member of the public who described herself as a senior.

“Mr. Turnage made clear he was not acting on behalf of the city,” wrote another. “City employees and representatives don’t leave their freedom of speech rights at the door.”

Manual Sidrian wrote, “I believe the agenda item is in retaliation to what Mr. Turnage said in a podcast, last month, regarding the homeless. We used to have a law, no loitering. Why can’t we use that same law for the homeless? We can help those who want help.”

Richard Miller wrote, “The coronavirus statements made by Mr. Turnage are reprehensible, uneducated. Please remove him from his post.”

George Matthews wrote, “Being a public official he has a duty to filter his personal opinion. But, I don’t believe he should be removed.”

Candace Ireland wrote, “Ken Turnage…is the only one who is doing anything to benefit the city

I can’t stand a single word that comes out of Lamar Thorpe’s mouth. But I don’t mount a smear campaign against him. (I have the utmost respect for Ken but none for you.”

Patrick Scott wrote, “I believe this action is totally unwarranted. Some of Mr. Turnage’s comments are politically incorrect. Rebuke him publicly. This is not a political or racial issue…that was presented in one council member’s statement.”

Michael Pohl wrote, “I do not agree with the removal of Mr. Turnage from the planning commission. Has the council provided any guideline? Will we start investigating all commissioners?”

Lucille Meinhardt wrote, “I’m asking you to preserve a person’s freedom of speech. His post is not racist or hate speech.”

Desiree Rushing wrote, “I am a first responder and respiratory therapist. My only response is…all lives matter.”

Joshua Young wrote, “Mr. Turnage has served the community greatly over the countless years. We live in a society in which everyone has the freedom of speech. It is your duty…to uphold the Constitution. No longer continue down this path of censorship. This is…politically motivated.”

Warren Lutz wrote, “I am confident the city council tonight will find Ken Turnage unfit and will remove him from the planning commission. I would urge you to go one step further. For 20 years he has been an outside contractor for Code Enforcement for the City of Antioch.” His comments were cut off due to time.

“What if I tell you one member on the council will have his own planet when he dies? Would you think that was extreme,” wrote another member of the public.

“If the commissioner was a city employee the council would be in violation of (state) law,” wrote another. “I do not agree with the commissioner’s comments. But, it did not rise to the level of violence against any group or individual.”

Nicole Sedano wrote, “Just because you don’t agree with someone’s opinion doesn’t give you the right to smear them. Monica Wilson, you should be ashamed of yourself. You deflect on others to hide the skeletons in your own closet. I believe you’re doing this because Mr. Turnage is going to run against you.”

Another wrote of “Ken Turnage enjoying white male privilege all his life” and the “exploited underclass.” “He should go forth to a hot spot and expose himself (to the virus).”

Mark Jordan wrote, “I have taken a pause before writing to you.  I wish sincerely that Ken Turnage had taken a pause before making his Facebook post. I do not believe that you should remove Mr. Turnage from his position with the planning commission.  A censure is more in order. Let us all rise above the moment of heated anger and outrage and allow ourselves a moment of pause.  Censure is a more equitable resolution.”

“This is shameful and a black mark on Antioch. The world is watching. Please do the right thing,” wrote another member of the public.

“He has a right to make that statement. Leave him the h**l alone,” wrote one man.

Jenny Osgood wrote, “I find Ken Turnage’s comments…very troubling. Mr. Turnage needs to resign his position.”

“These kind of Malthusian Theory comments are dangerous,” wrote another member of the public.

A 78-year-old resident wrote, “Am I now expendable? Ken Turnage must resign, or we will become a laughingstock.”

“I believe he has watched Logan’s Run too many times,” wrote another person.

“While Mr. Turnage’s comments are protected as freedom of speech, they were really Hitlerish,” wrote one woman.

“Ken Turnage should be fired. He has shown disrespect for the elderly,” wrote another.

April Meyers wrote, “I am neither elderly nor weak. But I am immunocompromised…I take exception to anyone who thinks I’m expendable.”

Utah resident Melissa Marlow wrote, “The outrage I felt…was pretty hard to describe. This person cannot…be in any position. I would hope his neighbors run him out of town.”

“I am the mother of a son who is immunocompromised…to hear that Ken thinks his life is expendable…he’s not worthy of the office,” wrote another woman.

Mary Owen wrote, “Do Mr. Turnage’s comments…accurately represent the views of Antioch. We will be watching…and hope you do the right thing and remove this racist…”

Michael Gadams wrote, “Please do your best to take the politics out of your decision. I’m sure Ken regrets what he wrote in hindsight. Offer to send him to some class on leadership. To punish him in a public forum will be a loss for all of us. Kenny is a good man…his heart is in the right place.”

“We are not a herd. We are a community of families…” wrote one woman.

“His comments were clear. Do the right thing and fire him,” yet another woman wrote.

Robert Michael Jordan wrote, “If I were you, I’d be embarrassed to have Mr. Turnage on the Planning Commission. Remove…this harmful clod.”

“He should take the opportunity to apologize for his comments. The internet is forever,” wrote a man who claimed he was a senior.

Alma Townsend wrote, “What happened to freedom of speech? No need to take it out on Kenny”

Former Antioch School Board Member Dale Hudson wrote, “I’m so shocked to read the comments by Ken Turnage. I also thought what planning capacity does he have? It worked for Adolph Hitler for a few years. At the moment, I do not have confidence…in the City of Antioch. But it will be restored if you remove Ken Turnage.”

“You and your council should do the right thing and allow Ken Turnage to continue his service…(and end) this ignorant witch hunt,” one man wrote.

Mark Coates wrote, “Ken Turnage needs to go. I am 66 years old so, I guess I’m one of the people that needs to go. I think not.”

Christina Burton wrote, “He would make Adolph Hitler proud. Out with him.”

“Make Antioch a better place for everyone, except Ken Turnage,” wrote one man.

Ella Williams wrote, “I feel threatened by Mr. Turnage’s comments…I am appalled…there is so much hate in those comments.”

“I… disagree he should be removed from his position. I definitely did not see any racial undertone,” wrote one man. “I ask you to consider some lesser action.”

Former Antioch Police Chief Allan Cantando called in and said, “I would just like to call a point of order. During normal council meetings…because this is a special meeting with no other things on the agenda. I would like to have the opportunity to read my comments because they are three minutes because there was no advanced notice.”

“Unfortunately, the decision…was made at the beginning of the meeting. We are not able to give him additional time,” said City Attorney Smith. “He is limited to a minute.”

“I’m shocked that we would limit free speech to one minute…I can’t believe we are at this point. Mr. Turnage made his comment as a personal perspective and never related it to the City of Antioch. Mr. Thorpe has pictures on his Facebook page…advocating for human trafficking and objectifying women. Are you going to be asking for his resignation? Let’s call this what it is a political attack on Mr. Turnage. A certain faction of the City Council are concerned that Mr. Turnage will get Ms. Wilson’s seat because in her two terms in office, she has done very little.”

“Should Kenny Turnage be removed from the planning commission for his comments? No. Should you comment about his Facebook post? Yes. Kenny Turnage is a good guy,” wrote another man.

“I think it’s horrible what you’re doing to Kenny. He said ‘let nature take it’s course’. I can’t wait until November. I hope he runs for mayor,” wrote one woman.

Two other people offered their one minute to speak to former police chief Allan Cantando.

“If you’re going to remove Ken Turnage, I want to remove Sean Wright for posting overly religious comments on his Facebook page,” wrote one member of the public.

Cecilia Perez wrote, “I felt compelled to write in. This conversation is not about free speech of the community’s opinion of Ken Turnage. This is about holding officials accountable. Removing him from this public post does not take away his ability to speak freely.”

A variety of comments received from people outside of Antioch also condemned Turnage’s Facebook post and all called for his removal.

Council Discussion and Vote

The council then took up the matter for discussion.

Wright asked the city attorney, “is this a free speech issue?”

“What I believe you’re hearing from the comments, the focus of this issue is…what have these comments had on the community,” Smith said. “This has incited an impact. You as policy makers have to determine what impact it has…to effectively make decisions for the community.”

“The individual is beyond the grasp of the public…” Ultimately a position that a commissioner is in, they got their power through the public. You have to decide what you hear from the public, there is a call to accountability. He is safely sheltered behind the elected officials in Antioch and only the elected officials can decide how this matter can be handled.”

Council Member Lamar Thorpe said, “This is an unfortunate situation. It was not an easy decision on your part. You have brought us here, today and you have my support. I had written out a whole lot as to it relates to my experience of four years ago (when he was removed from the EDC). I wrote down the phrase ‘loss of confidence.’ I expected to hear remorse. The public was incensed by his comments. What we’re talking about here is life and death. I’m insulted by some of the comments. I’m saddened by the comments about Mr. Turnage’s character. I don’t believe those to be true.”

He then made a motion to remove Turnage. Council Member Monica Wilson seconded it.

Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts spoke next saying, “It’s extremely unfortunate that we’re here, tonight… I would be remiss to not mention Ken’s work and dedication to the Antioch community and our local service organizations that support our youth, schools, senior community and our community celebrations and for that I am appreciative. I personally found his post abhorrent, absurd and devoid of any science, healthcare or economic fact. We are all vulnerable. The impact of Planning Commission Chair Turnage statements on his Facebook post have caused unnecessary damage during a time of extreme difficulty for this community, state and our nation as we deal with the extreme consequences, loss of life, severe illness and economic fallout.”

“Council members and I have received comments from all over the United States calling for his removal,” she continued. “I find it difficult to believe he can continue to have the confidence of the public. I have heard nothing tonight to lead me in a different direction. I will support your recommendation, Mr. Mayor.”

Council Member Lori Ogorchock asked, “how do we mentor commission members?”

“Each of the department heads run those commissions,” said Mayor Wright.

“Each of the commissions are trained by the departments that work with the commission,” City Manager Ron Bernal agreed.

“Planning Commissioners are sent to the Planning Commission Conference” that lasts three days, said Community Development Director Forrest Ebbs. “Anything beyond that is usually technical training.”

“A lot of comments have been made about thee reflection on the city,” Ogorchock stated. “Do we share with them what they post on their social media page that it will reflect on the entire city?”

“We as staff, we don’t have that kind of communication with commissioners,” Ebbs said. “There’s opportunities to learn and embrace what the current practices are.”

“This whole process is very destructive for the city,” Ogorchock said then listed the positive things Turnage has done for the community. “The first thing that Chairman Turnage said…’this post will probably anger some’. He knew his comments would offend some people. Most of the calls that I have received were from the elderly. They don’t feel they want to be a burden to anyone.”

“I truly don’t believe Chairman Turnage would know the impact of his words…and how they would affect the city and individuals,” she added.

“Those two statements that you read shows that he did know what the impact of his statement would be” responded City Attorney Smith.

“Mr. Mayor I support that you’ve brought this forward,” Wilson said. “I don’t have anything to add to my comments on Tuesday night.”

“As individuals in a democracy, freedom of speech of individuals is held in high value.  We are here tonight because city officials are held to a higher standard,” Wright said. “When our words as public servants undermine the city’s overall position and cause the citizens to lose confidence in us, especially during a pandemic when people are losing their lives and families are victim to illness, it is something that must be examined.”

“As the Mayor of the City of Antioch, I want to say to every single citizen that you matter.  That your life, your job, and your business are important to me,” the mayor continued. “We will continue to work hard to keep you safe and to support your businesses.”

“We cannot ignore that the world is facing something that we have never seen before.  And the only way out of this crisis is to support one another – with our words and our actions,” Wright concluded.

He then called for a roll call vote and each council member gave a voice vote in favor of removing Turnage from the commission.

He then called for a roll call vote and each council member gave a voice vote in favor of removing Turnage from the commission.

The White House

Issued on April 29, 2020

More than 230 years ago, the Founding Fathers of our Nation crafted a revolutionary and unique form of Government rooted in the rule of law.  Today, we continue to enjoy liberty, justice, and equality under the law as set forth and preserved in our Constitution.  On Law Day, we celebrate the distinctive framework of our system of Government, which secures individual liberties and protects against arbitrary exercise of government power so that all citizens have the right and the freedom to pursue their American Dream.

In arguing for the ratification of our Constitution, James Madison wisely recognized that in a government “administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”  The Framers understood the inherent dangers of consolidated government power and that, in order for our Republic to survive, the power to make, execute, and interpret laws could not be vested in one individual or one institution.  They knew that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” and accordingly devised an arrangement whereby separate and coequal branches share the power of the Federal Government, each limiting and checking the prerogatives of the others. They also created a system of enumerated powers for the Federal Government, reserving all other powers to the States.  In doing so, the Framers limited the powers of the Federal Government and preserved a place of prominence for State and local lawmaking, which they rightly believed to be more responsive to the unique needs of each community.

This year also marks both the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the 15th Amendment, which prohibited denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which prohibited denial of the right to vote based on sex.  The women and men who fought to win a voice for people of color and women in the electoral process strengthened our Union and helped the country better fulfill the founding promise of our Nation — that the power to enact and enforce laws be truly derived “from the consent of the governed.”  As we mark these milestones, we pay tribute to the courageous spirit of the trailblazers who made this achievement possible, and take inspiration from their righteous struggle as we continue working to root out and destroy injustice.

We know that our Republic can continue to shine as a beacon of liberty only if Americans diligently defend our Constitution and ensure that its limits are strongly enforced.  My Administration has sought to simplify and streamline America’s statutory and regulatory code, checking encroachments by government on individual liberty and unleashing the spirit of genius and innovation that has made America the freest and most prosperous country in the world.  Furthermore, one of my top priorities as President has been to nominate and appoint judges who are faithful to the proper role of the judiciary — to interpret the law, not to make it.  In all of these efforts, we aim to ensure that the Government can continue to perform its fundamental responsibility to the American people, articulated in the Preamble of the Constitution, to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

On this Law Day, I urge all Americans to honor our shared inheritance of respect for the principles of the rule of law, limited government, and individual liberty.  Let us rededicate ourselves to remaining ever vigilant in defending our rights secured by the Constitution so that our experiment in self‑government continues in perpetuity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, in accordance with Public Law 87–20, as amended, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2020, as Law Day, U.S.A.   I urge all Americans, including government officials, to observe this day by reflecting upon the importance of the rule of law in our Nation and displaying the flag of the United States in support of this national observance; and I especially urge the legal profession, the press, and the radio, television, and media industries to promote and to participate in the observance of this day.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fourth.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Information on State and Federal Benefit Payments

From – https://edd.ca.gov/about_edd/coronavirus-2019/pandemic-unemployment-assistance.htm

As part of the federal CARES Act, the new Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program helps unemployed Californians who are business owners, self-employed, independent contractors, have limited work history, and others not usually eligible for regular state UI benefits who are out of business or services are significantly reduced as a direct result of the pandemic. The provisions of the program once operational include:

• Up to 39 weeks of benefits starting with weeks of unemployment beginning February 2, 2020, through the week ending December 26, 2020*, depending on when you became directly impacted by the pandemic.
• An additional $600 to each PUA weekly benefit amount you may be eligible to receive, as part of the separate CARES Act Pandemic Additional Compensation program. Only the weeks of a claim between March 29 and July 25* are eligible for the extra $600 payments.

* Under the CARES Act of 2020, the $600 additional benefits are available through 07/31/20. However, the U.S. Department of Labor has issued guidance to clarify that, for most Californians, the last full week of benefits will end on 07/25/20. Similarly, the PUA program has a legislative end date of 12/31/20, but for Californians the last full week of benefits will end on 12/26/20.

Benefits can be retroactive to weeks starting on or after February 2, 2020, depending on your last day of work due to COVID-19 and regardless of when you submitted your claim application. The effective date of your claim will begin the Sunday of the week when you last worked and became unemployed due to reasons directly related to COVID-19.

Important Information

Note: Because this is a brand new program, each state will need time to develop all of the necessary system programming, forms, processes, and procedures. This page will be updated as information becomes available, including when and how to apply for these benefits. Once this new complex program is built and staffed, it will likely rival the size of the regular UI program the EDD already administers.

As we work to implement this new program, you can:

• Review the eligibility requirements the federal government has prescribed in order to receive these federally paid benefits.
• Visit the Labor Workforce Development Agency’s Pandemic Unemployment Assistance FAQs for more information.
• Contact your local America’s Job Center of California^SM where EDD staff work with local partners to provide employment assistance. You could be eligible for Supportive Services funding to help you with basic needs.

Eligibility

The PUA benefits are payable if you don’t qualify for regular UI benefits in California or another state and also do not qualify for State Disability Insurance or Paid Family Leave benefits. This includes:

• Business owners
• Self-employed individuals
• Independent contractors

You can also be eligible if you qualified for regular UI benefits, but have collected all benefits for which they are eligible.

If you are not a citizen of the United States, you cannot be paid PUA benefits unless you were legally permitted to work in the United States at the time such services were performed. In addition, you must be authorized to work for any week of PUA benefits claimed to be eligible for payments.

You must also meet one of the following criteria:

• You have been diagnosed with COVID-19 or are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and are seeking a medical diagnosis.
• You are unable to work because a health care provider advised you to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19.
• A member of your household has been diagnosed with COVID-19.
• You are providing care for a family member or a member of your household who has been diagnosed with COVID-19.
• A child or other person in the household for whom you have primary caregiving responsibility is unable to attend school or another facility that is closed as a direct result of the COVID-19 and the school or facility care is required for you to work.
• You became the breadwinner or major support for a household because the head of the household has died as a direct result of COVID-19.
• You have to quit your job as a direct result of COVID-19.
• Your place of employment is closed as a direct result of COVID-19.
• You were scheduled to start a job that is now unavailable as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency.
• You are unable to reach the place of employment as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency.
• If you work as an independent contractor with reportable income, you may also qualify for PUA benefits if you are unemployed, partially employed, or unable or unavailable to work because the COVID-19 public health emergency has severely limited your ability to continue performing your customary work activities, and has thereby forced you to stop working.

Benefit Payments

In order to provide benefits as quickly as possible, payments will be issued in phases. If you qualify for PUA, and depending on the effective date of your PUA claim, the initial payments you will receive are as follows:

• Phase 1 – $167 per week for each week you were unemployed from February 2, 2020 to March 28, 2020 due to a COVID-19 related reason.
• Phase 2 – $167 plus $600 per week for each week you were unemployed from March 29, 2020 to July 25, 2020, due to a COVID-19 related reason.
• Phase 3 – $167 per week, for each week from July 26, 2020 to December 26, 2020, that you are unemployed due to a COVID-19 related reason, up to a total of 39 weeks (minus any weeks of regular UI and certain extended UI benefits that you have received).

Note: If you qualify for your claim to be backdated to an earlier PUA effective date based on your last day of work, you could receive payment for prior weeks you were unemployed due to COVID-19.

You will be required to “certify” for your benefit payment. Certifying is the process of answering basic questions every two weeks that tells us you’re still unemployed and otherwise eligible to continue receiving biweekly payments.

When to File a Claim

We have a dedicated team working around the clock with state partners to build this new program as quickly as possible. The EDD will begin accepting online applications for this program on Tuesday, April 28. This page will be updated with instructions for filing a claim for PUA benefits when details become available.

If you are unsure if you are an independent contractor or an employee who could be eligible for benefits, file for regular Unemployment Insurance benefits and we will determine your eligibility.

After you have filed, refer to our step-by-step UI claims process. You’ll learn what to expect and the actions you need to take through the course of your claim for receiving benefit payments as long as you’re eligible.

Governor appoints business and civic leader, and former Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer Chief Advisor and as task force co-chair with governor’s Chief of Staff Ann O’Leary

All of California’s former governors and California’s legislative leaders across both political parties join the task force

Brings together Californian government, business, labor, health care and community leaders from across diverse range of the state’s economy to develop recommendations for a plan that works for all Californians, with a focus on the regions and communities hardest hit by the pandemic

Former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, Disney Executive Chairman Bob Iger, ILWU President Willie Adams, President and CEO of the California Community Foundation Antonia Hernandez, former head of the Small Business Administration Aida Álvarez and Apple CEO Tim Cook will be part of the task force stepping up to help California pave the way toward a fast, safe recovery of jobs

SACRAMENTO (April 17, 2020) – Bringing together leaders across California’s diverse, innovative economic and social sectors to chart a path forward on recovery in the wake of COVID-19, Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the formation of a state Task Force on Business and Jobs Recovery. The Task Force will be co-chaired by Governor Newsom’s Chief of Staff Ann O’Leary and philanthropist, environmentalist and businessman Tom Steyer, who was also appointed Chief Advisor to the Governor on Business and Jobs Recovery. He will receive no compensation for his service.

Members of the Task Force include Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, Senate Minority Leader Shannon Grove, Assembly Minority Leader Marie Waldron, former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, Walt Disney Company Executive Chairman Bob Iger, former head of the Small Business Administration Aida Álvarez and dozens of prominent leaders in business, labor, health care, academia and philanthropy.

Read the full list of Task Force members here.

“This pandemic has forced millions of Californians out of jobs – with the most vulnerable hit the hardest,” said Governor Newsom. “While we have made significant progress in flattening the curve and increased preparedness of our health care delivery system, the actions taken have also impacted the economy, poverty and overall health care in California. We will use a gradual, science-based and data-driven framework to guide our re-opening timing while planning our economic recovery. I am honored that dozens of leaders in business, labor, health and philanthropy are stepping up to meet this moment by committing their time and talent to lift up all Californians. Through their leadership, and the leadership of California’s 40 million residents, I have no doubt we will emerge stronger from this crisis.”

The Task Force will work to develop actions government and businesses can take to help Californians recover as fast as safely possible from the COVID-19 induced recession and to shape a fair, green, and prosperous future. They will meet twice a month throughout 2020 to develop options that would work for all Californians, with a particular focus on those hardest hit by the pandemic.

“Governor Newsom has been a steady hand and shining example of how to lead during a crisis, and I am thrilled to help in this critical way,” said Tom Steyer. “In the coming weeks and months, we will bring together the public and private sectors, outside experts, organized labor, environmental groups, and activists to develop recommendations for a recovery plan that works for all Californians, with an emphasis on those communities hardest hit by the pandemic. Our goal is to present Governor Newsom with tangible actions that leverage the task force’s expertise to rebuild California, emphasize smart, green technologies and provide a model for just economic development for our country.”

The Task Force will craft ideas for short, medium, and long-term solutions that reflect communities across the state, and emphasize a fair and equitable recovery. There will be significant emphasis of the state’s strengths, including diversity and innovation. The Task Force will not only focus on our immediate recovery, but on actions to support a cleaner, more equitable and prosperous future for all Californians. It will build on the important work of other groups including the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors, the Higher Education Council and the Commission on the Future of Work. Both co-chairs of the Future of Work Commission, President of SEIU Mary Kay Henry and Senior Partner of McKinsey & Company James Manyika, will serve on the new Task Force.

The governor formed the Business and Jobs Recovery Task Force just days after he announced a multi-state Task Force with Oregon and Washington to coordinate the reopening of our regional economy. Governor Newsom outlined a road map to recovery with six indicators that should be met before California’s stay-at-home orders are modified.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating effect on California’s economy. The state has seen more than 2.8 million unemployment claims since March 12, 2020 – not including undocumented residents or independent contractors. The impact has been particularly devastating for California’s small businesses.

While both budgets project a healthy reserve with a transfer in from the Stabilization Fund, one budget projects the city “will completely run out of money in Fiscal Year ‘25”

By Allen Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday night, the Antioch City Council was presented with two proposed mid-year budgets for Fiscal Years 2019-21 for them to review and give input for a final vote on April 28. Both budgets show a deficit in Fiscal Year ‘19-20 of approximately $4 million mostly from a previous legal settlement and re-appropriated funds from the previous fiscal year. The results of the coronavirus pandemic is projected to have an impact on the proposed FY ‘20-21 budgets. See complete agenda item, here: 2019-21 Mid-Year Budget Review ACC041420

“This budget report is unique, as we are three to four weeks into the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s having an impact on revenue,” said City Manager Ron Bernal.

“We’ve prepared two budgets for council, tonight. We’ll come back on April 28 for a final, Mid-Year Budget that we’ll ask you to adopt. Then have us come back in August with a study session with a better idea of impacts of COVID-19,” he continued. “Fortunately, for the City of Antioch, our property taxes are well diversified. Antioch is in a good position. But what we want to do is make you aware that there is a possibility we could be running into difficulties.” See budget details, here: 2019-21 Mid-Year Budget Comparisons

According to the staff report, both budgets project healthy reserves at the end of each fiscal year and reflect a transfer in from the Stabilization Fund to balance the budget.

“The CAL-PERS (state’s public employee retirement) fund has lost a great amount of its value. So, that will have impacts for years to come,” Bernal explained. “There’s a lot of uncertainties in this budget. But we have enough certainties to ask for your input.”

“We really do not know how this is going to roll down to the City of Antioch. We have best projections on sales tax revenues,” said City Finance Director Dawn Merchant. “We are fortunate to have a Costco, Walmart and Target, all three businesses that are operating during this time.”

“The city could have a $4 million short fall in sales tax, next year. It will be a deferral. But, that’s only if all businesses take the sales tax deferral” being offered by the state, she explained.

Merchant said the budget version one expects that “sales tax will start to rebound in Fiscal Year ’22.”

In version two “the city completely runs out of money in Fiscal Year ’25,” she explained. “We don’t know where we’re going to lie. I don’t want to be too optimistic. But we want to be fiscally prudent, at this time.”

Mayor Sean Wright and the council members then offered direction to staff.

Wright proposed holding off on contributions to OPEB (Other Postemployment Benefits for retired city employees) of $1.3 million and $500,000 in one-time expenditures to “allow us to go into ‘20-21 without a deficit.”

His suggestions include the public information officer and risk manager positions.

“I’m a stickler on the OPEB,” said Council Member Lori Ogorchock. “On the other ones you mentioned, I don’t have a problem,” except for cutting the funds for median improvements.

“Related to the PIO…the current contract extension is through September ’20,” said Bernal. “So, we will have a $24,000 commitment to complete the contract.”

“It may be something to come back and consider in September, depending on how hard COVID hits us,” Wright responded.

“What if we look at version one and we come back closer to August and consider the changes we’re going to make?” asked Ogorchock “Do we have to before August or can we wait until August?”

“You can give direction to the city manager with positions and hold off on any definitive hiring. You do have that alternative…to stall on the hiring until we know more,” Merchant responded.

“I’m OK on holding off, that includes holding off on some of these projects, like the utility box (painting),” Wright said.

“We’re not going to get all these positions hired before April 28, not even until August,” Ogorchock responded. “I think if we go with version one…we are moving in a positive direction. Like Ron said, we are in a good position. Property taxes still have to be paid and the property values haven’t gone down.”

“Some of these have already gone out, correct?” Council Member Monica Wilson asked.

“We have the artists lined up, but we haven’t given them the work to do, yet,” Bernal explained. “What we have listed here are things we haven’t committed to, yet.”

“I’m OK with going forward with version one…if that’s what council wants to do,” Wright stated.

“I just want to make sure is we do include the $75,000 for the part-time unhoused resident coordinator for FY 20-21,” said Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts. “I’m OK with going forward with versions one and two and reviewing it in August.”

“I’m OK with version one then going forward to August,” Wilson stated.

“I’m not for stopping anything. Let’s keep the ball rolling, particularly with OPEB,” Council Member Lamar Thorpe said.

“For the $850,000 in OPEB for Fiscal Year 2020, we have to put it in the budget by June 30th,” Merchant explained.

“If we have to do it by the final June meeting, we can hold off,” Ogorchock said.

“The direction I heard, Dawn was that we would keep rolling forward with the OPEB,” Wright stated.

Regarding the parking abatement team, “they’re pulling all those cars off our streets,” Ogorchock said.

“It’s not included in either budget version, so, it will add approximately $21,000,” Merchant said. “Council Member Thorpe said he was fine holding off on it.”

“We can hold off on deciding on it,” Motts said.

Merchant asked about Motts’ proposal to add in $75,000 for the unhoused resident coordinator.

“Let’s hold off on that so we can talk with our consultants,” Thorpe said.

The council held off making any cuts or additions to the proposed budgets, for now.

Approves $27 Million Settlement with Department of Water Resources

In other action, on a unanimous vote the city council approved the settlement agreement with the Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) of $27 million, replacing the 1968 agreement over the city’s pre-1914 rights to the river water. (See related article)

Approves Urgency Ordinance on Land Use, Subdivision and Zoning Applications

In addition, in response to the Emergency Declaration by City Manager Bernal on March 17, the council approved an “Urgency Ordinance Suspending Automatic Deemed Complete and Approval Deadlines for all Land Use, Subdivision, and Zoning Applications”.

According to the staff report by Forrest Ebbs, Community Development Director, “Both state and local land use laws impose a variety of timelines for the review and action on land use applications. Failure to comply with these timelines can lead to applications being deemed incomplete at the front end of the process or actually not being deemed approved at the back end. In either event, the impact of failing to meet these timelines is limit on the City’s (and the public’s) ability to review and comment on pending land use applications.”

Due to the current situation “it is difficult or impossible for the City of Antioch to process land use applications within normal time limits imposed by state and local laws,” Ebbs added in his report.

Formed Transitional Housing Ad Hoc Committee

In the council’s final action of the meeting, they approved the formation of a Transitional Housing Ad Hoc Committee. Motts and Thorpe want the City Council to continue their work helping the homeless, now that the Homeless Encampment Ad Hoc Committee was dissolved, earlier this year.

The committee will “explore transitional housing opportunities, which are designed to provide homeless individuals and families with the interim stability and support to successfully move to and maintain independent permanent housing, and support services for unhoused residents of the City of Antioch.”

The council approved a motion to form the committee for six months and appoint Motts and Thorpe to serve on it.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.