Dr. Darnise Williams, in her 4th job in the past 6 years, claims a “campaign to remove” her for refusing “to overlook questionable payments” and because she “disclosed fiscal and legal noncompliance to officials empowered to correct it,” plus, “she made an internal complaint concerning discriminatory, biased, harassing, and retaliatory treatment by Board leadership, including conduct directed at her as a Black woman” and makes multiple accusations against Rocha – the only Trustee to vote against hiring her

“I was the only one who didn’t vote to hire her. But on top of it, it takes three votes to get rid of her and she only targets me. Interesting, huh?” – Trustee Mary Rocha

By Allen D. Payton

Embattled Antioch Unified School District Superintendent Dr. Darnise Williams has responded to being placed on paid leave by suing the District, Area 5 Trustee Mary Rocha and unnamed “DOES 1-50” claiming a list of 12 “Damages” including whistleblower retaliation, discrimination, harassment and more. She is seeking a jury trial.

Specifically, the lawsuit, filed in Contra Costa Superior Court on Sept. 23rd, claims race and color discrimination, sex and gender discrimination, age discrimination, plus, Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) retaliation, harassment/hostile work environment, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, breach of written contract, declaratory relief, defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. According to findlaw.com, “Defamation per se means that a false statement was so inherently harmful that further proof of harm isn’t necessary. The statement would have been likely to cause reputational damage regardless of the context.”

Williams doesn’t want punitive damages against the District, just against Rocha.

Background

On a 4-1 vote, with Board President and Area 2 Trustee Dr. Jag Lathan the only school board member to vote “no”, Williams was placed on paid administrative leave on Aug. 25, 2026, after less than 14 months in the job. Williams was hired during the June 11, 2025 School Board meeting on a 3-1 vote with Rocha the lone dissenter and Area 4 Trustee Olga Cobos-Smith absent. This is Williams’ fourth position in the past six years, her starting annual base salary was $353,045, plus contractual benefits, according to the lawsuit, and she was paid $357,234 last school year. (See related article)

The Board agendized the performance evaluation of Williams for that meeting and during three previous meetings, as well.

At their Special Meeting on May 27, which was not live-streamed, the report out reads, “There was no reportable action taken during closed session.”

Then during the August 5 Special Board Meeting, which was also not live-streamed, the report out of Closed Session reads, “The Board took action by unanimous vote of all trustees present to assign Trustee Cobos-Smith with the duty of compiling the Board’s evaluation of the superintendent consistent with Board Policy 2140.”

Finally, during their Regular Meeting on August 19th, the Board again agendized the performance evaluation of the superintendent. But Lathan did not report out from Closed Session any action on the matter.

Cobos Smith was asked ifthe performance evaluation was ever provided to Dr. Williams.

“The evaluation was complete and submitted to her,” she stated in response.

The school board held a special meeting on Oct. 7th during which they met in Closed Session to discuss the lawsuit. Under item A. described as, “CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—Existing Litigation (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9) Name of Case: Dr. Darnise R. Williams v. Antioch Unified School District, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No. C26-03234.”

Since there was no video of the meeting and the minutes are not  yet available on the District’s website, asked about the results from that Closed Session, Cobos Smith stated, “There was no reportable action and Dr. Lathan did not attend. The attorney just shared the complaint with us so that we would know about it through official channels before it went public.”

Yet Williams claims in her lawsuit that the Board did not conduct the oral and written annual performance review required by her employment agreement. But later in her lawsuit she claims to have received an “unsatisfactory assessment,” but reiterated that the Board “did not provide the contractually required oral evaluation.”

Lawsuit Details

In the 30-page complaint, Williams shares the fact that she “is a Black and African-American woman over the age of forty…and therefore belongs to protected race and color classes.” The lawsuit also claims, “She was…qualified for and capable of performing the Superintendent position and performed that work successfully.”

The lawsuit explains Williams “timely presented a written claim to the District as required by the Government Claims Act. The District did not act within the statutory period, and the claim was deemed rejected.”

To support Williams’ claims of damages, the lawsuit provides general accusations and details against both the District, i.e. the Board of Trustees and staff, and specifically, against Rocha.

She claims, “Rocha…personally participated in the harassment alleged” and “Each DOE Defendant participated in, authorized, ratified, aided, or failed to prevent the unlawful conduct alleged here.”

The Introduction reads, “1. This action arises from a public school district’s campaign to remove its first-year Superintendent after she insisted that public funds, employee compensation, fiscal controls, and Board governance comply with law. Plaintiff was hired to lead and stabilize the District. She did that work. When she refused to overlook questionable payments and disclosed fiscal and legal noncompliance to officials empowered to correct it, influential trustees turned the scrutiny onto her.

“2. The retaliation followed a recognizable sequence: race- and gender-charged remarks; escalating personal hostility; dissemination of accusations that an outside investigation did not substantiate; manipulation of the contractual evaluation process; a manufactured unsatisfactory assessment untethered to the agreed performance goals; and, ultimately, removal from active duty on paid administrative leave while the District moved immediately toward interim leadership.

“3. The paid leave is nevertheless materially adverse: it stripped her of the duties and authority of Superintendent, impaired her reputation and future employability, denied contractual evaluation and compensation rights, and positioned the District to end her employment.

“4. The District did not conduct the oral and written annual performance review required by Plaintiff’s written employment agreement. After Plaintiff invoked the contract’s notice-and-cure procedure, the District still failed to complete the agreed review. Under the contract, her evaluation therefore became satisfactory and the applicable salary-step increase was due retroactively. The District instead issued a procedurally defective document built on generalized and stereotyped criticisms.

“5. Plaintiff seeks…no punitive damages against the District…only against Rocha based on malice, oppression, or fraud shown at trial.”

Specific Claims – Discovered Illegal Payments to Trustees,

Williams’ lawsuit offers details about multiple matters and claims the following:

First, regarding her claim of whistleblower status, under section B. Protected Disclosures and Opposition the superintendent alleges she “discovered cash-in-lieu health-benefit payments to trustees, including Rocha, that Plaintiff reasonably believed were unauthorized or otherwise inconsistent with governing law and lawful use of public funds…stopped or corrected the…payments…disclosed the issue to persons with authority to investigate, discover, or correct the noncompliance…sought legal guidance and refused to approve or perpetuate payments she reasonably believed unlawful.” Williams “also disclosed other fiscal and governance concerns, including unauthorized compensation or salary placements, failures of internal control, and conduct she reasonably believed implicated open-meeting, labor, or public-fund requirements…to District officials, Board members, counsel, auditors, fiscal professionals, and other persons or public bodies with authority over” her “or authority to investigate and correct the reported violations.”

Her complaint claims, “The District, Rocha, and other decisionmakers knew of Plaintiff’s disclosures and protected opposition before taking the adverse actions.”

Williams’ lawsuit also shares that, “She made an internal complaint concerning discriminatory, biased, harassing, and retaliatory treatment by Board leadership, including conduct directed at her as a Black woman.”

Claims Rocha Wanted a Latino Superintendent, Plus, Racial, Gender and Age Discrimination by District

Under section C. Defendants Violated Plaintiff’s Civil Rights, the lawsuit continues, “Rocha told Plaintiff (Williams) in substance that Plaintiff had not been Rocha’s preferred choice because Rocha wanted a Latino Superintendent. Rocha also invoked the prior Black Superintendent having been run out of the District. These remarks directly revealed race and ethnicity as considerations in Rocha’s view of District leadership.”

Williams also claims to have “challenged payments benefiting Rocha” and “Rocha and aligned decisionmakers repeatedly cast” the superintendent “through racialized stereotypes: angry, aggressive, threatening, bullying, incoherent, and unprofessional.” But Williams claims, “Those labels were not supported by specific contemporaneous facts and were inconsistent with witness accounts and investigative findings.”

She also claims that treatment was unfair and inconsistent as “the District treated white administrators and executives more favorably in evaluations, discipline, succession decisions, workplace complaints, and access to a fair process. White counterparts who exercised forceful leadership, enforced fiscal controls, rejected improper demands, or encountered complaints were not subjected to the same racialized labels, irregular procedures, removal of duties, or accelerated replacement activity. The comparative records are within Defendants’ possession and control.” However, only the superintendent is hired directly by the school board, while all other top district leaders are hired by the superintendent.

Williams’ complaint also claims, “race and color were substantial motivating reasons for those actions, as shown by direct race-based remarks, racialized stereotypes, materially less favorable treatment than similarly situated white counterparts, disparate handling of complaints, failure to follow objective procedures, and the participation of biased decisionmakers” and she was subjected as “a Black woman in the District’s highest executive position, to gendered and intersectional stereotypes” and that she was treated differently than “similarly situated male leaders” and that her “sex and gender were substantial motivating reasons for the altered evaluation, denial of compensation rights, removal of duties, paid leave, and succession activity, independently and in combination with race and color.”

Finally, Williams claims she “was over forty and qualified for the Superintendent position” and that “decisionmakers favored materially younger candidates for interim or permanent leadership, evaluated younger leaders more favorably, and considered Plaintiff’s age when accelerating succession planning” and claims further that her “age was a substantial motivating reason for the altered evaluation, denial of compensation rights, removal of duties, paid leave, and succession activity.”

Yet, after placing Williams on leave, the Board hired a retired superintendent, Jose Banda, who began his education career in 1984, as the District’s interim superintendent which would place his age to be in the mid-60’s.

Alleged Physical Incident with Rocha

Under section D. Manufactured Complaints and a Predetermined Evaluation, Williams claims an alleged physical incident with Rocha was “a brief interaction” in which she “did not yell at, threaten, touch, hit, block, or accost Rocha, and did not shake a phone in her face. Contemporaneous witnesses reported that Plaintiff was not angry and did nothing improper.” Further, the superintendent claims, “Rocha initially indicated that Plaintiff’s phone was not in her face and that she was fine. She later filed a formal complaint portraying the exchange as angry, aggressive, threatening, and physical.”

Williams’ lawsuit also claims that Rocha “later falsely stated as an asserted fact that Plaintiff hit or physically assaulted her” and “knew the accusation was false because no such contact occurred” with which Rocha disagrees (see below), and that, “Rocha advanced the accusation at a critical point in Plaintiff’s evaluation cycle, circulated it within the Board, and used it to advocate for Plaintiff’s removal.”

The superintendent’s complaint further explains, “An outside investigation did not sustain the principal accusation against Plaintiff,” with which Rocha agrees (see below). But Williams states, “The District nevertheless continued to rely on the accusation’s stigmatizing themes and allowed Rocha to participate in decisions affecting Plaintiff.”

Unfair, Incomplete Evaluation, Changed Process, Not Neutral or Done in Good-Faith

In that same section, Williams claims, “Before a fair evaluation was completed, Board members and agents changed the agreed process, marginalized the agreed goals, and relied on generalized complaints that staff felt bullied, that Plaintiff’s communications lacked clarity, that accountability was absent, and that social-media complaints had increased.” Further the superintendent claims the Board, “did not fairly apply the agreed instrument to the mutually established goals, and did not identify concrete facts sufficient to permit meaningful response,” and that “The assessment was signed or supported by persons who had participated in accusations against Plaintiff or had conflicts affecting their neutrality. Other trustees did not sign it. The process was irreconcilable with a neutral, good-faith evaluation.”

Finally in that section, Williams alleges, she “timely submitted a detailed written rebuttal. Defendants did not cure the process or apply the contract’s deemed-satisfactory provision and earned salary increase.”

Alleges Rocha Committed Unlawful Conduct, Made Defamatory Statements

Under section E. Rocha’s Unlawful Conduct and Defamatory Statements, Williams repeats her accusations against Rocha and further claims the Area 5 Trustee, “voluntarily republished the false accusation” that Williams “hit or physically assaulted” Rocha both “orally and in writing to District employees, community members, and other third persons who had no official role in, legitimate need for, or common interest in any such proceeding” and that “Those extrajudicial republications were not made in any official proceeding, were not made to initiate or achieve the objects of any official proceeding, and were not logically related to any such proceeding.”

Williams further claims that Rocha’s accusations, “directly injured Plaintiff in her profession as Superintendent by portraying her as violent, dangerous, and unfit to lead a public school district. It caused presumed and actual reputational, professional, economic, and emotional harm” and “District administrators and supervisory employees knew or reasonably should have known of Rocha’s hostility, bias, escalating retaliation, false accusation, and the foreseeable risk of reputational and emotional harm. They nevertheless failed to use reasonable care to separate conflicted actors, supervise the process, prevent unnecessary dissemination, correct known falsehoods, and conduct a neutral evaluation and investigation.”

Thus, Williams’ lawsuit asserts, “Those operational failures were negligent acts and omissions of District employees acting within the scope of their employment, not a claim that the District is directly liable at common law or liable

for Rocha’s misrepresentation” and their “conduct caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress and the other injuries alleged above.”

Alleges Being Placed on Leave by Board Was “Planned”

Finally, under section F. Paid Administrative Leave and Continuing Harm, Williams’ lawsuit claims that since, for the special Board meeting on Aug. 25th, “the agenda combined Plaintiff’s evaluation, dismissal or discipline, and appointment of interim leadership” the “sequence reflected that the result had been planned before any lawful and fair decision making process was completed.”

Actually, both terms “acting” and “interim” were included on the agenda for that meeting, and the items were options provided to the Board so, that if the second action was taken, they could take the third action and not have to wait to come back at a future meeting to appoint an acting superintendent. The three agenda items read: “A. Public Employee Evaluation – Superintendent; B. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release; and C. Public Employee Appointment – Acting and/or Interim Superintendent.”

However, it does appear that both individuals to fill the roles of acting and interim superintendent were already lined up. After announcing Williams had been placed on leave, Board President Dr. Jag Lathan reported out that the Board also, “took action in Closed Session by a unanimous vote…to appoint Ed Dacus as Acting Superintendent effective August 26th through August 30th, 20206 and Jose Banda as Interim Superintendent effective August 31st, 20206 through and until his services are no longer needed.”

Williams lawsuit claims, “When immediate termination could not lawfully proceed at that meeting, Defendants relied on a separate electronic-signature allegation as a basis to remove Plaintiff from active duty and open another investigation,” and that “interim or successor activity began before the formal leave decision, further showing pretext and predetermined removal.”

 As a result, she alleges, “The leave nevertheless removed Plaintiff’s authority, duties, access, and professional platform as Superintendent; stigmatized her before staff and the community; interfered with contractual performance; impaired her reputation and future earning capacity; and denied the salary increase due under the agreement,” and she “has suffered and continues to suffer economic loss, lost contractual compensation and benefits, loss of professional opportunities, injury to reputation, humiliation, anxiety, panic symptoms, sleep disruption, headaches, emotional distress, and related harm.”

Finally, Williams complaint claims, “The temporal proximity, shifting explanations, deviation from established procedure, selective investigations, direct bias evidence, and use of unsupported stereotypes demonstrate that Plaintiff’s protected disclosures and protected characteristics were substantial or contributing reasons for the adverse actions,” and “If Defendants terminate her or otherwise reduce compensation, she will seek the resulting back pay, front pay, severance, benefits, retirement losses, and future earning losses.”

Causes of Action

The lawsuit then lists the 12 causes of action:

1. Whistleblower Retaliation — Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 1102.6 Against District and DOES 1–25

2. Race and Color Discrimination — Government Code § 12940(a) Against District and DOES 1–25

3. Sex and Gender Discrimination — Government Code § 12940(a) Against District and DOES 1–25

4. Age Discrimination — Government Code § 12940(a) Against District and DOES 1–25

5. FEHA Retaliation — Government Code § 12940(h) Against District and DOES 1–25

6. Harassment and Hostile Work Environment — Government Code § 12940(j) Against All Defendants

7. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation – Government Code § 12940(k) Against District and DOES 1–25

8. Breach of Written Contract Against District and DOES 1–25

9. Declaratory Relief Against District and DOES 1–25

10. Defamation Per Se Against Rocha and DOES 26–30

11. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against Rocha and DOES 26–30

12. Negligence — Government Code §§ 815, 815.2, and 820 Against District and DOES 31–50

Relief Sought

Williams seeks the following 11 items as relief:

From the District she wants, “general, special, compensatory, and consequential damages according to proof, including emotional-distress and reputational damages;

“economic damages…including unpaid contractual compensation and benefits, lost professional opportunities, and impaired earning capacity;

“back pay, front pay, severance, lost benefits, retirement losses, and future earnings to the extent such losses accrue and are recoverable; and

“the civil penalty authorized by Labor Code section 1102.5(f); That section is about retaliation and reads, “an employer is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per employee for each violation of this section to be awarded to the employee who was retaliated against.”

Williams also seeks, “declaratory relief determining the parties’ rights and obligations under the employment agreement;

“the District to correct or remove the defective evaluation, honor the deemed-satisfactory and salary provisions, cease unlawful retaliation and discrimination, preserve relevant evidence, and provide other appropriate prospective relief;

“reasonable attorney’s fees; and costs of suit and prejudgment and postjudgment interest as permitted by law.”

From Rocha Williams wants, “presumed and actual damages for defamation per se against Rocha, including reputational, professional, and economic harm; punitive and exemplary damages against Rocha only on the harassment, defamation, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims, in an amount sufficient to punish and deter.”

Finally, Williams wants, “other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.”

Rocha Responds, Doesn’t Have Copy of Lawsuit

Rocha is the only incumbent running for re-election and the only one specifically named in the lawsuit.

When reached for comment Trustee Rocha said, “I was the only one who didn’t vote to hire her. But on top of it, it takes three votes to get rid of her and she only targets me. Interesting, huh?”

“She’s suing me for $5 million, is what I was told,” she added. But the lawsuit does not list any specific total dollar amount that Williams is seeking.

Asked if she attended the Oct. 7th Closed Session meeting Rocha said, “I was there.” Asked if she had to hire her own attorney she said, “No, not under these circumstances since I’m under the school board and the school district attorney represents me, is my understanding.”

Asked if she’s seen the lawsuit or has a copy of it, Rocha said, “I haven’t asked. I haven’t even been bothered with it, right now.” But it was reviewed with her and the other Board members during their Closed Session meeting on Oct. 7th.

Asked about the claim that she told Williams she wanted a Latino superintendent instead, Rocha said, “Yes, it’s true I didn’t vote for her. But that doesn’t mean I’m racist. I told her about the Hispanic candidate and that they were both equal in their background. But majority rules.”

“A majority of students in the District are Hispanic,” she pointed out.

According to the latest California Dashboard statistics about AUSD released Thursday morning, of the 15,159 students in the District, 7,756 or 51.2% are Hispanic.

Rocha also spoke about the incident with Williams when she claims things got physical saying, “It was during one of the meetings at the Deer Valley High theater between the restrooms and the state. “Dee saw it happen and stepped in between us.”

“I filed a letter to put in her file. I have never done that in my life. The attorney found it was no cause,” she added.

“They’re trying to find something to kick me out because they haven’t been able to,” Rocha stated. Then about why she’s running again said, “I want to get back there because I want to clean up things she’s made a mess of.”

“When people look at the disaster in the District, they’re going to think I’m part of it. But I didn’t vote for her. I didn’t vote for the wages. I didn’t vote for a lot of things,” Rocha stated. “I’ve been fighting this all the way, but I didn’t have the other two votes. Then two of them did join me,” referring to Brown and Cobos Smith. She said that occurred following the incident when things allegedly got physical.

Rocha faces one opponent in the November election, which will be held on Tuesday, Nov. 3rd. Lathan chose not to run for re-election for Area 2 Trustee and only Roxanne Reece filed to run.

Mail-in voting has already begun but the voter registration deadline is next Monday, Oct. 19th. For more information visit https://www.contracostavote.gov/election/november-3-2026-general-election/#Election

CEO is running for Pittsburg City Council

By Allen D. Payton

According to documents available on the Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County website, a private security company based in Antioch sued The Greater Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce and “Does 1-50” to get paid a little more than $15,000 for providing services to the Pittsburg Seafood Festival in 2023. The annual event was organized by the Chamber for which Wolfgang Croskey, a current Pittsburg City Council candidate, was and is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

While the organization’s new website offers no mention of him, on the page of Croskey’s campaign website entitled, “The Record” he lists, “Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce, CEO 2020 onward.”

In his role as CEO, Croskey signed the agreement with Strategic Threat Management, Inc. in August 2023 for the security services provided to the festival the following month. Yet, Croskey and the Chamber refused to pay, even after being sued and losing in court in 2024, until now.

While the contract total was for $26,561.60, the company sought $15,173.60 in their lawsuit, filed April 23, 2024, and the default judgment was issued and filed a little over a year later, on April 29, 2025. It required the Chamber to also pay the company pretrial interest at an annual rate of 10%, plus, attorneys fees and other costs for a total of $18,555.30.

Asked why the difference between the contract total and amount in the lawsuit, Strategic Threat Management’s president, Lawrence Treat explained, “He paid 50 percent as a deposit.” The additional amount sought in the lawsuit was to cover interest before it was filed. “He totally ghosted us. The judgment was by default. He completely ignored the court.”

On Monday, October 12, 2026, Treat shared with the Herald that Croskey had paid his attorney on Friday which was confirmed today. Asked what Croskey said to him, Treat said, “He didn’t say squat. No apology. It’s an absolute insult. It couldn’t have come at a better time. More important is the principle. You can’t do that to honest people. We’ve been in the community for a long time. It was absolutely uncalled for. It goes to his character. Heaven forbid he ends up in office. He’ll be in charge of city finances.”

“How timely was that?” Treat added asking rhetorically.

When asked why the Chamber still hadn’t paid Strategic Threat three years after their services were rendered and 18 months after the judgement was issued, Croskey said on Monday, “That’s been taken care of and paid.”

Asked if there was a dispute, he said, “No dispute at all. Just a revenue issue. The last couple of festivals have taken out of the Chamber. We’ve lost the steel mill and Corteva. We’ve lost some major sponsors. It’s been hard. We’ve never disputed the item or their services. The Chamber doesn’t get any money from the City and hasn’t for the past two years.”

The 2024 festival was the final year of the annual event that was first held in 1984.

Asked why the Chamber did not respond to the lawsuit in 2024 Croskey said, “There was nothing to dispute. Just took a little bit longer than expected. But it was paid 100 percent in full.”

See Judgement.

Croskey faces nine other candidates for three council seats in the November election.

Finalize agreement to expand DOJ-required monitoring consultant’s contract

Consider potential whistleblower lawsuit

By Allen D. Payton

During a special meeting Monday, August 31, 2026, the Antioch City Council will consider hiring an Economic Development Director and forming a separate Economic Development Department, again. They will also finalize the discussion and vote on expanding the contract with the monitoring consultant required by the settlement agreements with the U.S. Department of Justice, City of Antioch and police department. That will follow a Closed Session to discuss the lawsuit by the natural gas pipeline company and a potential lawsuit by a City employee whistleblower.

Economic Development Director & Department Redo

Under Item 2. on the Special Meeting agenda, the Council will consider once again forming an Economic Development Department and hiring a director for it, following its merger with the Community Development Department by City Manager Bessie Scott, last year.

It also follows the current vacancy in the position of Director of the Community and Economic Development Department since March 3, 2026, when the director was no longer in the position after being hired less than six months earlier. (See related article)

According to the City staff report, the Council “has identified economic development as an important policy priority, including business attraction and retention, investment recruitment, development incentives, redevelopment, workforce partnerships and strategies to strengthen the City’s economic base. At the August 25th budget study session, City Council expressed the desire to explore separating Economic Development from Community Development and re-establishing a separate department with its own Director to have a focused strategy…at a time when economic development and revenue generation are most vital to the City.”

The staff report continues, “the Fiscal Year 2026/27 Economic Development division in the Community and Economic Development Department includes $436,759 in personnel budget for three positions: Senior Economic Development Program Manager, Economic Development Program Manager and Economic Development Specialist. Projected vacancy savings were built into the 2026/27 budget figure assuming it would take several months to fill the positions. There could be a budget impact should City Council decide to add back the Director position.”

The recommended organizational structure of the department would include an Economic Development Director, Senior Economic Development Coordinator and Specialist, eliminating the position and cost for the Economic Development Program Manager.

The staff report also shared, the current salary range for the Antioch Economic Development Director is $13,021-$15,828 per month, which is on the low end of a salary comparison with surrounding cities that’s included. “If a new salary range were established beyond that, it should fall within Antioch’s existing range of executive leadership salaries. If City Council would desire to increase the existing established salary range for the department’s Director, it is recommended to be at a range of $14,185-$17,242, slightly above Brentwood and within the City’s existing structure. The 2026/27 estimated annual salary and benefit cost of the position at this range at Step E would be $393,027.”

Monitoring Consultant Contract

After discussing then postponing the matter during their Aug. 25th meeting, under Item 1 on the Special Meeting agenda, the Council will again consider approving the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with MS Investigative Services and Consulting, LLC, to expand the scope of services to include Independent Monitoring services required under the Allen Settlement Agreement (ASA); and authorizing an additional annual compensation amount of $150,000 for ASA monitoring services and associated Fiscal Year 2026/27 General Fund budget amendment.

According the company’s website, the Principal, Manjit Sappal “served in three California police departments, culminating in his tenure as Chief of Police for the City of Martinez…he also served twice as Interim City Manager…oversaw all municipal departments and guided the City through strategic budget initiatives, ballot measures, and community safety priorities.”

He earned a Master’s degree in Public Administration, a CA Private Investigator License, he’s a Certified Protection Professional, a graduate of the FBI National Academy Session 241 and the Police Executive Research Forum Senior Management Institute and has received DEA Federal Law Enforcement Analysis Training and CA Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Executive, Management, Supervisory, Advance, Intermediate and Basic.

According to the City staff report, “The existing Professional Services Agreement…provides compensation of up to $250,000 annually for consulting and monitoring services required under the USDOJ Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The proposed First Amendment increases compensation by $150,000 annually to compensate the Consultant for the expanded monitoring responsibilities required under the Allen Settlement Agreement. The additional compensation will be paid hourly at the rate of $210 not to exceed $150,000.”

If the First Amendment is approved, total annual compensation for monitoring services under both agreements will not exceed $400,000 annually. Amending the contract requires a Fiscal Year 2026/27 General Fund budget amendment of $150,000 which will increase the projected deficit of $4,567,879 by $150,000. Funding for future years will be included in draft budgets brought forth for consideration.

Background

According to the City staff report, in April 2023, the USDOJ initiated an investigation into the Antioch Police Department following the public disclosure of text messages exchanged by Antioch police officers containing racist, sexist and discriminatory language. As a result, in Jan. 2025, the City of Antioch, Antioch Police Department and the USDOJ entered into the MOA, requiring implementation of reforms related to constitutional policing, accountability systems, data collection, complaint investigations, community engagement, hiring practices, supervision and oversight.

A key component of the MOA required the City and the USDOJ to jointly select an Independent Consultant to provide technical assistance, compliance monitoring and implementation oversight. Following a competitive and joint evaluation process with USDOJ representatives, MS Investigative Services and Consulting, LLC was selected as the Independent Consultant.

Then, on March 27, 2026, the City entered into the Settlement Agreement in Allen et al. v. City of Antioch, et al, a class action civil rights lawsuit. The Settlement Agreement incorporates many of the same constitutional policing reforms and accountability measures already required under the DOJ MOA and expressly requires that the existing DOJ Monitor also serve as the Monitor under the ASA.

See Final Allen Settlement Agreement.

As previously reported, Allen is one of four individuals convicted of the 2021 murder of Arnold Marcel Hawkins and the attempted murder of Aaron Patterson and it was that case which resulted in the release of the police officers’ texts. Allen and a variety of other plaintiffs claimed civil rights violations by the officers. A settlement between the City and their attorneys was announced Dec. 19, 2025.

The monitoring consultant submitted the Antioch Police Department’s First Compliance Report in April this year, pursuant to the MOA signed January 2, 2025. The report assesses the Department’s compliance with the MOA for the reporting from that date through March 31, 2026.

That followed the police department’s Self-Assessment Report 1 issued by Chief Joe Vigil on October 15, 2025.

Closed Session

During their Closed Session meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m., under Item 1. the Council will hold a Conference with Legal Counsel on existing litigation by the California Resources Pipeline Corporation (CPRC) v. City of Antioch, Contra Costa Superior Court Case No. MSN21-2354. The lawsuit continues following the Antioch City Council’s 4-0 vote during their meeting on July 28, 2026, to deny the company’s Encroachment Permit Appeal. CPRC is the owner of the low-pressure, natural gas pipeline that runs under the city and has been shut off since 2021. (See related articles here, here and here)

Under Item 2., the Council will hear about and discuss “Significant exposure to one case of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(e)(2). The staff report reads, “The City is in receipt of information concerning facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the City which are known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs pertaining to possible Labor Code Section 1102.5, and Fair Employment and Housing Act violations.” According to Employment Law Aid, “California Labor Code § 1102.5 protects whistleblowers who report violations.”

Meeting Details

Before entering Closed Session and during their Regular Meeting, which begins at 6:30 p.m., the Council will meet in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street, and both can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website, on the City’s YouTube channel or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.

See complete agenda packet.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Says “the District Board wrote the RTM Ballot Question…in a way that is intentionally confusing or misleading to voters.”

By Allen D. Payton

The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit (CABAT) organized to oppose the Regional Transit Measure (RTM) on the November ballot filed a lawsuit, Monday, against Election Officials in the five included counties and Kimberly Ward, the Public Transit Revenue Measure District Elections Official. If approved by voters, the tax measure, known as Connect Bay Area Transit, will raise a half-cent in four of the five counties, including Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo and one-cent in San Francisco County for 14 years and raise an estimated $17 billion.

Labeled a VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, the lawsuit was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court by 10 petitioners including former State Senator Quentin L. Kopp, Gregg A. Diéguez, President of CABAT and Marc Joffe, President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, as well as Brian Holtz, Thomas Rubin and five others listed as individuals and electors in the Public Transit Revenue Measure District.

Kopp is also President of the San Francisco Taxpayers Association; Holtz is President of the Purissima Hills Water District Board of Directors in Santa Clara County and Secretary and Treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County; and Rubin is Vice President of the Alameda County Taxpayers Association, Inc.

Attorney Jason Bezis of Lafayette is representing them.

The District was formed to oversee the process for the transit tax measure. (See related article) A separate oversight committee will be formed to verify proper expenditure of the funds should the measure pass.

The lawsuit was filed before “the final printing deadline date” of “Friday, August 28, 2026, by which all ballot language and County Voter Information Guides (CVIG) materials must be finalized, including resolving any legal challenges in court.”

Transit Officials Were Warned But Did It Anyway

According to Joffe, “Transit officials cannot claim they were blindsided. On the night of July 23, 2026, the eve of the board’s special meeting, attorney Bezis sent a detailed pre-litigation demand letter urging the board not to approve the question as drafted.  The letter was acknowledged multiple times and the measure was placed on the ballot with the slanted wording anyway.”

Legal Claims

The lawsuit “challenges biased, not neutral, untrue, partial, argumentative, and/or prejudicial wording in the RTM Ballot Question (also called ‘ballot label’ or ‘statement of the measure’) in violation of the Elections Code sections 9051(e) and 13119(c) standards and false and/or misleading wording in the RTM Ballot Question under the Elections Code section 9380/McDonough v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1169 (‘McDonough’) standard. This lawsuit also challenges the Impartial Analysis authored by real party in interest DISTRICT Counsel KATHLEEN KANE as false, misleading, and/or not impartial in violation of Elections Code section 9380.”

The petitioners “seek a writ of mandate to compel amendment of the ballot question (also known as ‘ballot label’ or ‘statement of the measure’) and the impartial analysis that Respondents COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICIALS and Ms. WARD are preparing for voter use in the Regional Transit Measure (‘RTM’) election to be held on November 3, 2026.”

Further, the lawsuit claims, “Petitioners assert that the DISTRICT and DISTRICT BOARD wrote the RTM Ballot Question…in a way that is intentionally confusing or misleading to voters.”

Current Ballot Language

The lawsuit explains, “As approved by the PTRMD BOARD at its July 24, 2026 meeting, the RTM Ballot Question (see District Resolution No. 2 Page 7) currently reads:

‘To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit, avoid increased traffic, and reduce pollution by: Preserving BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness, affordability, reliability; Repairing targeted roads/potholes; Requiring financial transparency, oversight, accountability; shall the measure enacting a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties), and 1% (San Francisco) sales tax for 14 years generating approximately $980,000,000 annually, be adopted?’”

Challenges & Proposed Changes

However, the petitioners claim the adopted ballot language does not comply with state Elections Code and the amount is incorrect and should instead be $1.2 million per year. They claim the statement of the measure is not “a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure,” is “argumentative” and “likely to create prejudice for or against the measure,” and that the “RTM Ballot question is inherently prejudicial” based on a survey MTC conducted last year. Furthermore, the petitioners “argue that components of the RTM Ballot Question are false and/or misleading.”

They want to make the following changes:

• Amend the phrase “Preserving BART …” to read “Funding BART …”
• Delete the phrase “for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities”.
• Delete the phrase “To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit”.
• Alternatively, strike the word “major” in the phrase “To prevent major service cuts …”
• Delete the phrase “avoid increased traffic”.
• Delete the phrase “reduce pollution”.
• Strike the phrase “/potholes”.
• Amend “Repairing targeted roads” to read “Repaving transit-served roads”.
• Strike the words “affordability, reliability”.
• Amend “enacting” to read “imposing”.
• Amend the phrase “sales tax” to read “sales and use tax”.
• Strike the word “oversight” in the phrase “Requiring … oversight”.
• Strike the word “accountability” in the phrase “Requiring … accountability”.
• Amend “$980,000,000 annually” (September 2025 estimate) to an updated number (an August 2026 estimate) or “$1,200,000,000 annually” (September 2025 estimates, averaged over 14 years).

Alternative Ballot Language

The lawsuit offers the following ballot language alternatives:

“If the Court were to order all of the amendments and corrections suggested by Petitioners supra, the RTM Ballot Question would read:

‘Funding BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness; Repaving transit-serving roads; Requiring financial transparency; shall the measure imposing a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties) and 1% (San Francisco) sales and use tax for 14 years generating approximately $1,200,000,000 annually, be adopted?’”

The lawsuit further reads, “If the Court were to order all of the amendments and corrections suggested by Petitioners supra, including use of the ‘Shall the measure … be adopted?’ format, the RTM Ballot Question would read:

‘Shall the measure imposing a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties) and 1% (San Francisco) sales and use tax for 14 years generating approximately $1,200,000,000 annually; Funding BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness; Repaving transit-serving roads; Requiring financial transparency; be adopted?’”

The petitioners also claim the “RTM Impartial Analysis is partial, false, and/or misleading” and that it should be written by either the California Attorney General, a county counsel or district attorney instead of Kathleen Kane who is he legal counsel for the District.

“Supporters of the Transit Measure need to use misleading advertising because voters won’t pass the measure if they have the real story that it is a regressive tax falling hardest on seniors and low-income families for 14 years,” Dieguez stated.

“Voters deserve the honest description the law guarantees them, and if the district won’t provide it, a court should,” Joffe added

See the Public Transit Revenue Measure District’s Legal Counsel RTM Impartial Analysis.

See RTM-Ballot-Question-Lawsuit-Aug-17.pdf.

For more information about CABAT visit Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit.

The election is Tuesday, Nov. 3.

Several related to alleged police civil rights violations

Will also discuss city attorney performance evaluation

By Allen D. Payton

During a special closed session meeting on Thursday, June 18, 2026, the Antioch City Council will meet with legal counsel to discuss 41 existing lawsuits, 16 potential lawsuits and the performance evaluation of City Attorney Lori Asuncion. The meeting begins at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers before adjourning behind closed doors.

Some of the lawsuits were among those also discussed by the city council during their meeting on Dec. 19, 2024.

Existing Lawsuits

1) Jayson Robinson v. Antioch Unified School District, Antioch Water Park, City of Antioch, Contra Costa Superior Court, (Case No.C20-02420). – Former student with a heart disorder who almost drowned during a class outing. (See related article)

2) Trent Allen, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 3:23-cv-01895-TSH). – Ongoing civil rights class action lawsuit against the City, as well as police officers and former chiefs. Plaintiffs also include Shagoofa Khan, Adam Carpenter, Joshua Butler, Diego Savala, Kardell Smith, Dejon Richards, Dreshawn Jackson and David Mackin. Defendants also include former Police Chiefs Tammany Brooks, Tony Morefield, Steven Ford, and former officers Josh Evans, Eric Rombough, Morteza Amiri, Scott Duggar, John Ramirez, Timothy Manly Williams, Tom Lenderman, Loren Bledsoe and Thomas Smith. As previously reported, Allen is one of four suspects convicted of the 2021 murder of Arnold Marcel Hawkins and the attempted murder of Aaron Patterson. He and the other plaintiffs claim civil rights violations by the officers. The case appeared to be settled last year. But, without explanation from City staff, continues to be adjudicated. (See Settlement and related articles here and here)

3) Ashika Kanji v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-00795). Personal Injury and Torts – Motor Vehicle lawsuit.

4) Reagan DeGuzman v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C23-00666).

5) Nicholas Warner v. County of Contra Costa, City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C23-02689). According to an EINPresswire report, “a bicyclist was injured when a designated bike lane was abruptly blocked by a locked metal gate located in an insufficiently illuminated section of (a developing) roadway.” According to court documents, “Plaintiff alleges he was injured while riding a bicycle between 10:30 and 11:00 pm on property owned by the City of Antioch” and amount demanded is $35,000. New home developer “K. Hovnanian plans to file a cross-complaint against Teichert Construction, Inc. and/or All Commercial Fence, Inc., the parties responsible for erecting and/or maintaining the gate alleged to have caused the injury.”.

6) Susan Shintaku v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-00356).

7) O.Y. a Decedent, et al., v. Contra Costa County, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 3:24-cv-05154-PHK). Civil rights lawsuit by plaintiffs A.Y. a minor, W.Y. a minor and O.Y. a decedent. Defendants include Jessika Fulcher, Sr Worren Young, City of Antioch, Contra Costa County, Flynne Lewis, Raji Ponnaluri, Contra Costa Regional Health Foundation, Colleen Sullivan and The Learning Center.

8) Jordan Davis v. County of Contra Costa, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No.4:21-cv-04651). The complaint, filed on June 16, 2021, alleges civil rights violations. Defendants include County of Contra Costa, Nicole Martinez, Brian Rose, Ashley Crandall, Vernita James, Hutchings Christian, City of Antioch.

9) Nirvana Allen v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C22-02401).

10) Lamar Young v. Sgt. Stenger, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 21-cv-08131-DMR).  Young is one of two brothers arrested in 2020 for a brutal sexual assault of a woman and convicted in 2022 of sex crimes and robbery. (See related articles here and here).

According to court documents, this is a civil rights case filed Aug. 15, 2023, by self-represented Plaintiff Lamar Young. He alleges “that the following Defendants employed by the Antioch Police Department (“APD”) used excessive force against him during an interrogation on October 29, 2020, in West County Detention Center in Contra Costa County: Sergeant James Stenger; and Detectives Kelly Inabnett, Mellone, and Bledsoe.Plaintiff asserts that during the interrogation, he refused Defendants’ request that he put on a mask in order for them to take a photograph of him wearing it.Plaintiff alleges that when he refused to put on the mask, Stenger, Mellone and Bledsoe forced him to wear it, using excessive force against him in the process. Plaintiff further claims that Inabnett failed to intervene to stop the use of excessive force. Plaintiff also alleges a state law claim of negligence against Stenger for failing to prevent a ‘safety issue’.”

11) Jessie Wilson and Dajon Smith v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 4:24-cv-02758-JSW). A federal civil rights lawsuit filed on May 8, 2024, against the City of Antioch, and individual, now former, police officers Morteza Amiri, Eric Rombough, and Devon Wenger, former Chief Tammany Brooks and DOES 1-50.

12) Pat Stack, et al., v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-01065).

13) Mary Reed v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-01367).

14) Marilou Gecale v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-01383).

15) Michael Sweets v. Antioch Police Department, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, (Civil Action No. 24-9275 VC). According to Justia.com, the case is a Prisoner: Civil Rights complaint filed by Michael Sweets, a pretrial detainee at West County Detention Facility in Contra Costa County. The case involves allegations of false arrest and search and seizure of Sweets’s vehicle.

16) Estate of Linda Woolridge, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-01750). The case arose from the tragic death of Woolridge, a 29‑year‑old mother of two, who was fatally struck by a drunk driver, Antioch resident Alexander Mayorga, while riding her bicycle on Lone Tree Way in the early morning of July 27, 2024. (See related Herald articles here, here and here)

17) Kathryn Wade, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court for Northern California (Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-03200-TSH). – Filed by Wade on April 9, 2025, other plaintiffs include S.B., China Young, Adrian Arroyo and Brandon Lopez. Defendants named in the suit include City of Antioch, current or former Chief A. Morefield, Chief Tammany Brooks, Sgt. Evans, Sgt. Jimmy Wisecarver, Sgt. Stenger, Officers Kelly Inabnett, Aaron Hughes, Morteza Amiri, Devon Wenger, Eric Allen Rombough, Jacob Ewart and Michael Mellone.

According to the East Bay Times, Wade previously sued the City and two police officers, Michael Mellone and Jacob Ewart, in March 2023. The Antioch City Council voted in November 2024 to pay Wade $349,000 as part of a settlement. She claimed her son Malad Baldwin was assaulted by Antioch Police Department officers in 2014.

“The lawsuit said that Baldwin was seated in Wade’s car, which was parked in front of their house, when two Antioch police officers — James Colley and Casey Brogdon — approached the car, opened the passenger door and yanked Baldwin out. The two officers then kicked and beat him with a flashlight even after he lost consciousness, court documents state. Wade, who was present during the incident, also reportedly sustained physical and mental injuries.

“In her complaint, Wade claimed that apart from the alleged assault of Baldwin, Antioch officer Santiago Castillo had also verbally assaulted and pointed a gun at her while she was in a wheelchair that same month. She also alleged that Baldwin was again beaten at least three times in September and December of 2019, as well as in March 2020.”

Baldwin, who, according to Localcrimenews.com, had been arrested multiple times between 2014 and 2020, died March 13, 2021. However, according to his mother, he was never convicted of a crime.

18) Angelia Baxter v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-02194). According to Law.com, the personal injury lawsuit is for damages arising from an incident that occurred on city property or premises.

19) Espiridion Puga v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-03209).

20) Jonathan Smith v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, (case No. 4:25-cv05572-KAW). Civil rights lawsuit.

21) Antioch Police Officers Association v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N23-1629). As previously reported by the Herald, the APOA’s attorney, Mike Rains, said the lawsuit is to obtain then-Mayor Lamar Thorpe’s phone records because the City won’t provide them, claiming they couldn’t find any. The Public Records Act request covers the nine days prior to Thorpe’s Wednesday, March 30, 2023, press conference when he spoke about the investigation into the racist text scandal among Antioch officers.

22) Christopher Martinez v. City of Antioch, Antioch Police Department, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court, (Case No. C24-03123). Civil – Labor and Employment lawsuit.

23) Annette Bullock, et al. v. City of Antioch, Contra Costa County Superior Court (Case No. C19-01331). Lawsuit by 17 retired City employees over medical after retirement health benefits.

24) California Resources Production Corporation v. City of Antioch, Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, (A.23-07-008, MSN21-2354). – Regarding the previous council’s shutdown of the natural gas pipeline. (See related articles, here and here)

25) Devon Wenger v. Antioch Police Department, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00578). – By former Antioch Police Officer convicted, sentenced to 7.5 years in prison for conspiring to violate civil rights, distribute steroids, and obstructing justice. Wenger claims he was framed and retaliated against as a whistleblower. (See related articles here and here)

26) Brittany Hopper v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00988).

27) Donna Miles v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00148).

28) Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00916, C25-02768) According to Law.com, this is a real property judicial foreclosure action. Defendants also include Does 1 through 20 (undisclosed), the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Testate and Intestate Successors of Darrell Oliver, Deceased, and all persons claiming by, through or under such decedent.

29) Royal Pacific Funding Corporation v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (C25-01851).

30) Linda Price v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C25-01700).

31) Gary Dartez & Tamisha Latimore v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Limited Civil Jurisdiction, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N25-1849) Rent Program. Filed Sept. 17, 2025, the defendants include Redwood Property Investors III, LLC.

32) Lucia B. Albers & Elizabeth Ann Iannaccone v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N26-0037). A civil action by developer of the Albers Ranch 294-home project in the Sand Creek Area. Although approved by the City Council in January 2025, Albers claims discrimination and she’s being overcharged fees that make her project financially unviable. Plaintiffs are seeking a writ of mandate and declaratory relief against the City of Antioch.

33) Katie Harrison v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-03507).

34) Karl Brownlee v. City of Antioch and California Community Housing Agency, Superior Court of the State of California, Limited Civil Jurisdiction, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N26-0212) Rent Program.

35) Wintrust Mortgage, a Division of Barrington Bank & Trust Company, N.A. v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C26-00295).

36) Shimmick Construction Co., et al, v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, (Case No. 3:25-cv-05618 & 25CV109652 [Superior Court of  Alameda]). For Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty by the General Contractor for non-payment for work on the City’s Brackish Water Desalination Plant in which they are seeking damages of $30 million plus interest. (See related article)

37) Dason Melius v. J. Yega, City of Antioch Police Officer, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. 25-cv-06956-CRB). Filed on May 5, 2026, by a a pretrial detainee at Contra Costa County’s West County Detention Facility (WCDF). According to court documents, “Plaintiff alleges that on September 22, 2023, he was arrested by several City of Antioch Police Department officers who used excessive force against him. He specifically alleges that officers J. Yega and Joseph Chandler ‘lift and throw [plaintiff] to the ground face down, with handcuffs.’ FAC (ECF No. 12) at 5. Then officers Chandler and B. Lassas ‘bounced on plaintiff’s legs while they were bent backwards,’ and officers Lassas and Aguilar ‘appl[ied] pressure or force to plaintiff’s back, pushing air out, stopping his ability to breathe.’ Id. Plaintiff further alleges a series of purported violations in connection with the conditions of his subsequent confinement at MDF (Martinez Detention Facility) and WCDF in 2024. Among other things, he alleges that various correctional staff at MDF and WCDF were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety needs and interfered with his right of access to the courts.”

38) Jami Bruno, the Estate of Gabriel Gaspar v. Contra Costa County et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00820-EGW). A Personal Injury and Torts – Motor Vehicle lawsuit. Defendants include the City of Antioch, Contra Costa County Fire Emergency Services and Contra Costa County Fire Rescue Services. According to court documents, “The incident occurred on March 20, 2024, at the intersection of W. Fourth St. and L Street in Antioch.”

The lawsuit alleges, “Gabriel Gaspar was involved in a motorcycle-vehicle collision outside the Antioch Police Station. Antioch Police Department personnel arrived first and began resuscitation efforts, successfully reviving Gaspar two to three times. Contra Costa County Fire Emergency Services and Fire Rescue personnel arrived and took over medical care. However, they negligently ordered Antioch Police personnel to stop CPR and failed to continue life-saving resuscitation efforts. Defendants breached their duty by ceasing resuscitation efforts prematurely, in direct violation of established protocols. Defendants failed to act with reasonable care when they stopped resuscitation efforts.”

39) Christian Gutierrez et al. v. City of Antioch et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. 3:24-cv-01697-JSC). Civil rights violation complaint against Gonzalez Adrian, Antioch Police Department, City of Antioch, Stenger James, Vincent James, Harger Matt, Thomas Steve, Doo Will. Filed by Rosalba Zendejas, Christian Gutierrez, Giovanni Gutierrez.

40) Javier Elias Aguilar v. Anthony Valdez, Jr. et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C23-00410). According to Unicourt.com, on 02/24/2023 Aguilar filed a Personal Injury and Torts – Motor Vehicle lawsuit. Defendants also include Officer Ryan Duff and City of Antioch.

41) Jasmine Morris-Hughes v. Alameda Contra Costa Transit District et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-01756). According to UniCourt.com, on 06/20/2025 Morris-Hughes filed a Personal Injury and Torts – Motor Vehicle lawsuit. Defendants also include the City Of Antioch, County of Contra Costa and Does 1 to 50, inclusive. Court documents claim, Bus Driver Toby Sanders  “negligently, carelessly, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, and tortiously operated a motor vehicle in the defective mechanical condition of a motor vehicle…in such a manner so as to cause the motor vehicle to begin the chain of events which ended up with Plaintiff MORRIS-HUGHES was thrown to the right after an unsafe left turn, causing her physical, bodily, mental, and emotional injury. Plaintiff was injured in her health, strength, and activities, and sustained injury to her body and shock and injury to her nerves and nervous system, all of which have caused and continue to cause her great mental, physical, and emotional pain…”

The meeting will begin and end inside the Council Chambers located at City Hall, 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown. The City Attorney will report out of Closed Session any action taken by the Council.

Deal with possible lawsuit by city employee during special meeting before another budget study session

Staff does not provide baseline budget to council as requested but shows annual deficits for this, next two years

By Allen D. Payton

CORRECTION: This reporter and members of the community misinterpreted the intent of the agenda items for today’s City Council Closed Session meeting. Because nothing was agendized to discipline or release a city employee, it was not possible for the Council to discuss terminating City Manager Scott.

During a special afternoon Closed Session meeting today, Tuesday, May 5, 2026, the Antioch City Council will discuss City Manager Bessie Scott’s performance evaluation, then deal with a potential lawsuit from an unnamed city employee and appoint an interim city manager. That means Scott could be placed on paid leave. That meeting begins at 4:00 p.m. It will be followed by another budget session at 5:30 p.m.

Scott started in October 2024 and just completed 19 months in her position out of her two-year contract. As previously reported, she was hired on a split, 3-2 City Council vote in August 2024. 

The fact that City staff did not provide “a baseline budget that represents only the required minimum municipal services that the City has to provide” for the 2026-27 Fiscal Year, as requested by the mayor, according to the staff report for the Budget Study Session, that may be one of the reasons for the Council’s actions.

The Closed Session agenda reads as follows:

1) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: CITY MANAGER.

This closed session is authorized pursuant to California Government Code section 54957(b)(1).

2) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION. The city is in receipt of facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the City which are known to a potential plaintiff and that pertain to potential employment-related claims by the potential plaintiff against the City. This closed session is authorized pursuant to California Government Code sections 54956.9(d)(2) and 54956.9(e)(2). Number of cases: One.

3) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT: ACTING CITY MANAGER. This closed session is authorized pursuant to California Government Code section 54957.

The legal matter may be a possible lawsuit by Scott if she is being terminated for cause and the council doesn’t plan to pay her six months of severance included in her contract. But that is mere speculation as the agenda provides no other information to the public.

Mayor Ron Bernal and the four council members were asked why they’re holding a meeting to fire the city manager and hire an acting city manager at 4:00 p.m. when most people can’t attend. They were also asked why now when she only has six more months on her contract.

Only Freitas responded with, “They Mayor is responsible for setting the agenda. And, due to confidentiality I am legally prevented from discussing this matter with you.”

Additional efforts to reach Bernal and efforts to reach Scott were unsuccessful prior to publication time.

See Meeting agenda.

Budget Study Session – Includes Deficits for This, Following Two years

For the special Budget Study Session beginning at 5:30 p.m., City staff did not provided the Council with the requested baseline budget. The staff report for the one agenda item reads, “At the Special Meeting of April 21, 2026, the Mayor requested that staff provide a baseline budget that represents only the required minimum municipal services that the City has to provide; to then afford the City Council to layer upon that budget to address priorities. As stated by the City Manager and Finance Director, with only 9 weeks to go until the City is required to adopt a budget, this is an impossible exercise to complete in such a short time frame to ensure we have time to research legal mandates as well as do a thorough review of departmental expenditures for what ‘qualify’ as the bare minimum and what is considered to be beyond the minimum. Should Council want to pursue this budget process, it is recommended to start this in August for building the Fiscal Year 2027-28 budget and potential mid-year adjustment for Fiscal Year 2026-27.”

Furthermore, the staff report reads, “With the budget as presented this evening, Council will need to determine what the acceptable level of deficit they are willing to proceed with and potentially direct specific cuts to incorporate if the Council is not willing to adopt this budget.”

Included in the proposed budget are the adjustments the Council proposed at their meeting on April 28th which amount to almost $2.4 million in cuts, plus, the $5 million transfer from the Budget Stabilization Fund.

Even with those cuts and an annual transfer of $5 million from the Budget Stabilization Fund, the General Fund Budget Summary shows an ending deficit for this year of $4.7 million, proposed for the 2026-27 Fiscal Year of $6.5 million and projected for the 2027-27 Fiscal Year of $13.4 million.

See Budget Study Session agenda.

Meeting Details

The Closed Session will begin and the Budget Study Session will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall located at 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. They can also be viewed via livestream on the City’s website, on Comcast Cable Channel 24 or AT&T U-verse Channel 99 and a recording posted later on the City’s YouTube Channel. The public can speak before the Closed Session to give input prior to the council adjourning to the closed door meeting.

For “emotional, mental, and psychological…injuries, disability, losses, and damages suffered” due to 2019 incident

By Allen D. Payton

During a special Closed Session meeting on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, the Antioch City Council will discuss a lawsuit by a former Antioch Unified School District student with a heart disorder who almost drowned in a City pool for “emotional, mental, and psychological…injuries, disability, losses, and damages suffered.” The lawsuit was filed against the City, District and Antioch Water Park by “Jayson Robinson, a minor (at the time), by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Philana Stearne.”

According to the lawsuit, after being transported by bus to the water park during a school sponsored activity, Robinson was allowed to go swimming even though Stearne had provided written notice that he could not swim and was not allowed to swim during the excursion. After an unknown amount of time Robinson was found at the bottom of the pool unconscious. He was extracted from the pool and found to be “pulseless and apneic”. Lifeguards performed four rounds of CPR to revive Robinson who was then airlifted and rushed to UCSF Children’s Hospital in Oakland.

According to the lawsuit documents, “From approximately 2012-2020, PLAINTIFF (Robinson) was a student at Jack London Elementary School…Dolores Williams was the principal… On or about May 28, 2018, PLAINTIFF was in the fifth-grade and assigned as a student in Shelly Travers class.

According to the First Amended Complaint for Damages demanding a jury trial filed Nov. 23, 2021, “PLAINTIFF is a fifth-grade student with Wolff-Parkinson White Syndrome and a learning disability. PLAINTIFF is enrolled in special education instruction classes which entail his removal from class 10 times a week for help with academics and to be provided extra educational resources.”

The lawsuit also reads, “On May 28, 2019, PLAINTIFF attended school sponsored activity with his class to Antioch Water Park located at 4701 Lone Tree Way, Antioch, CA 94531. While at the water park, PLAINTIFF was concurrently under the direct supervision of Defendants employed by Defendant ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, and employees of Defendant ANTIOCH WATER PARK. Students were transported via bus from the school to Antioch Water Park. PLAINTIFF’S Guardian Ad Litem, PHILANA STEARNE, provided written notice to Defendants that PLAINTIFF could not swim, and was not to be allowed to swim on the excursion. Defendants ignored the written notice of PLAINTIFF’S Guardian Ad Litem, PHILANA STEARNE, and through failed supervision, PLAINTIFF entered the pool. Due to lack of supervision, PLAINTIFF was found at the bottom of the pool unconscious after an unknown amount of time. PLAINTIFF was extracted from the pool and found to be pulseless and apneic. Lifeguards performed 4 rounds of CPR and PLAINTIFF finally awoke. Robinson was then airlifted and rushed to UCSF Children’s Hospital in Oakland.”

According to the Mayo Clinic, “Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome is a heart condition present at birth. That means it’s a congenital heart defect. People with WPW syndrome have an extra pathway for signals to travel between the heart’s upper and lower chambers. This causes a fast heartbeat. Changes in the heartbeat can make it harder for the heart to work as it should.

“WPW syndrome is fairly rare. Another name for it is preexcitation syndrome.

“The episodes of fast heartbeats seen in Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome usually aren’t life-threatening. But serious heart problems can occur. Rarely, the syndrome may lead to sudden cardiac death in children and young adults.”

The lawsuit documents also read, “On or about November 5, 2019, PLAINTIFF presented to ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, by mailing to ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a written claim for the injuries, disability, losses, and damages suffered and incurred by him by reason of the acts and omissions described” and that Robinson “was harmed and suffered extreme physical, emotional, psychological and economic damages.”

The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

“a. For damages for past and future medical, psychotherapy and related expenses according to proof at the time of trial;

b. For general damages for physical and mental pain and suffering, and severe and extreme emotional distress in a sum to be proven at the time of trial;

c. For damages for future lost wages and a loss of earning capacity according to proof at the time of trial;

d. For damages for past and future education costs according to proof at the time of trial;

e. For attorney’s fees;

f. Any appropriate statutory damages;

g. For prejudgment interest pursuant to statute;

h. For the costs of suit herein; and,

i. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.”

Meeting Details

The Council’s Closed Session meeting begins at 5:30 p.m. inside the Council Chambers located at 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It will be followed by the regular meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m. The beginning of the Closed Session and entire regular meeting can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.

By Office of the California Governor

Governor Gavin Newsom announced on Friday, March 27 2026, his appointment of two more Superior Court Judges in Contra Costa County, Hanni Fakhoury and Amanda Karl.

Hanni Fakhoury, of Contra Costa County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Fakhoury has worked as a Partner of Moeel Lah Fakhoury since 2021, where he works in white collar and federal criminal defense as a trial attorney and mediator. He served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender at the Federal Public Defender for Northern District of California from 2015 to 2021. Fakhoury worked as a Staff Attorney and Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation from 2011 to 2015. He worked as a Trial Attorney at the Federal Defenders of San Diego from 2007 to 2011.

According to his Linkedin profile, “Fakhoury is an accomplished litigator who represents individuals and companies in criminal prosecutions and government and regulatory investigations. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a Northern California Super Lawyer. In addition to litigation, Hanni serves as a mediator in the Northern District of California’s ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) program and is a co-lecturer at UC Berkeley School of Law.

According to his bio on his law firm’s website, Fakhoury is a “Bay Area native” and “proudly serves the Northern District of California as a member of its Criminal Justice Act (CJA) trial panel, representing indigent criminal defendants. He was also selected by the Northern District bench to serve on the court’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility, Criminal Rules and Practice Committee, and CJA Administration Committee.”

“A sought-after teacher, Hanni…co-teaches a seminar on white collar crime. He has presented and lectured at over 100 legal conferences to wide audiences, including judges, attorneys and the public at large.”

Fakhoury received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Charles S. Treat. Fakhoury is a Democrat.

Amanda Karl, of Alameda County, has also been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Karl has worked as a Partner at Gibbs Mura since 2022, where she also worked as an Associate from 2016 to 2021. She served as a Law Clerk at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California from 2015 to 2016 and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2014 to 2015.

According to her profile on the Gibbs Mura website, Karl “represents consumers, employees and others who have been harmed by corporations. She has prosecuted a wide range of complex cases, including product defect, failure-to-warn, wage and hour, data breach, sexual assault, and securities cases, within a variety of industries. In 2024 she was honored as a Rising Star by Law360, a highly selective award that recognizes top attorneys under the age of 40.

Karl received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law as a member of the Order of the Coif, a national honorary scholastic society, which extends invitations to the top 10% of Berkeley Law’s graduating J.D. students by grade point average. . She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Charles B. Burch.  Karl is a Democrat. 

The annual compensation for each of these positions is $244,727.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.