In response to letter from Contra Costa DA sent earlier this year Civil Grand Jury issues report to Antioch Council on city staff leadership turnovers, vacancies, possible Brown Act violations

“Any similar meeting on matters concerning the city could subject council members to criminal liability.” – DA Becton, Deputy DA for Public Corruption Bolen

Barbanica calls for resignations of Hernandez-Thorpe, Wilson, Torres-Walker and reopening investigation

Mayor says they were “get-togethers, not meetings”

“This is betrayal to the community and to the people they work with on the council,” Councilman Mike Barbanica

“What I’m not going to do is get caught up in Barbanica’s nonsense,” – Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe

By Allen D. Payton

The Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury publicly released, on Tuesday, July 2, 2024, a report entitled, “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch.” It was sent with a cover letter to the council members on June 14 and includes three areas of concern including turnover in city leadership, city employee vacancies and “possible Brown Act (state open meeting law) violations by the Mayor and certain City Council members, as outlined in a letter to Antioch’s Acting City Manager from the Contra Costa District Attorney.”

While Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe denies the gatherings at his home attended by current Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker were meetings at which city business was discussed, his former love interest, Lacy Ferguson, said she offered testimony to the DA’s Office and Grand Jury that the three did discuss redistricting of council districts.

The report also includes five recommendations, two with deadlines by Jan. 1, 2025. The cover letter signed by Grand Jury Foreperson Joanne Sarmento, copied to Acting City Manager Kwame Reed, requires a written response from the city council by Sept. 13, 2024.

The report reads, “Antioch is a dynamic and diverse city that faces a number of challenges. Among these challenges are:

1. Turnover in city leadership (six permanent or acting City Managers since 2013) which has resulted in an average tenure for Antioch City Managers that is less than half the state average (less than two years vs. 4.5-year average).

2. A city employee vacancy rate that is 4-times the national average (21.6% vs. 5.3%).

3. Possible Brown Act violations by the Mayor and certain City Council members, as outlined in a letter to Antioch’s Acting City Manager from the Contra Costa District Attorney (see Appendix A).”

Of the recommendations for the city council to follow, two are to be implemented immediately, one six months after the new city manager is hired, and two by next January 1st. The second recommendation is a reminder that city regulations preclude the mayor and council members “from having any direct authority to direct, supervise, hire or fire any city employee, other than the City Manager and City Attorney.”

Herald Publisher Participated in Grand Jury‘s Local Media Panel Discussion

For full disclosure, this reporter was one of three members of the media invited to meet with the Civil Grand Jury in June 2023, including Dan Borenstein of the East Bay Times and Tamara Steiner, publisher of the Concord/Clayton Pioneer. Issues regarding the hiring of the Antioch city manager and other matters were discussed and answers provided to questions from the jurors. However, it is unknown if anything discussed that day was used as a basis for the Grand Jury’s investigation or findings.

UPDATE: Asked if any of the input provided during the meeting with the local media panel was part of the basis for the Grand Jury’s investigation and report, new Foreperson Peter Appert responded, “As the deliberations and work of the Grand Jury are conducted in secret, we are unable to respond to your question. But thank you for your participation in Jury orientation last year.”

Letter from District Attorney, Deputy DA for Public Corruption Re: Private Meetings

That letter to Kwame Reed, sent on Jan. 3, 2024 (but incorrectly dated Jan. 3, 2023) and copied to City Attorney Thomas L. Smith and the Grand Jury was entitled, “RE: Alleged violations of the Brown Act by Antioch City Council members.”

DA Becton and Deputy District Attorney Steven Bolen, who was then in charge of public corruption, wrote, “The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office was contacted earlier this year regarding alleged violations of the Brown Act by Antioch Mayor Thorpe, Antioch Councilmember Torres-Walker and Antioch Councilmember Wilson. Specifically, we were told that those three council members met in private to discuss matters within the council’s jurisdiction regarding the Public Works Department and the hiring of the City Engineer. Our investigation also led to an allegation that those three city officials met in private to discuss the redistricting of the city’s electoral map. The District Attorney’s Office reviewed these allegations and the applicable law and then interviewed potential witnesses to determine whether any Brown Act violations occurred.”

“The Brown Act… prohibits a majority of the members of a legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body unless such a meeting is open and public,” the letter continued. “…there is evidence that Mayor Thorpe and Councilmembers Torres-Walker and Wilson met at Mayor Thorpe’s home in 2022 and held discussions” and “Our investigation leads us to believe that Mayor Thorpe and Councilmembers Torres-Walker and Wilson did meet and may have developed a collective occurrence absent a public forum.”

The letter explained why there would be no action taken against the three councilmembers. It reads, “the District Attorney’s Office has serious concerns that non-compliance with the Brown Act may have occurred, however, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt intentional violations of the statute at this time.”

Instead, Becton and Bolen decided to inform Reed, “in order for you to impress upon the council the importance of the Brown Act and the requirements of the statute. Any similar meeting on matters concerning the city could subject council members to criminal liability.”

“As the Brown Act makes clear, the deliberations and actions of our governmental representatives must occur openly and be subject to public scrutiny,” the letter concludes.

They also said they sent the “letter to the Contra Costa County Grand Jury to provide that body the opportunity to take any action it may deem appropriate.” (See CCDA letter re Antioch City Council)

The Grand Jury responded five months later with their report.

Hernandez-Thorpe Admits Private Meetings With Two Councilwomen, Torres-Walker Doesn’t Deny It

In a March 28, 2024 article by The Mercury News/East Bay Times, Hernandez-Thorpe admitted to meeting privately with Wilson and Torres-Walker. The report reads, “As to whether or not he met with Torres-Walker and Wilson, Hernandez-Thorpe said that he had but not for a nefarious purpose.”

“’We coordinate campaigns and whatnot, because we’re Democrats. We’re together all the time,’ Hernandez-Thorpe said. He later added, ‘I think if they can demonstrate that we violated the Brown Act, we’re more than happy to take corrective action.’”

Torres-Walker didn’t deny the private meetings and saying, “that she had no problem with whoever tipped off the DA using the proper channels to voice their concerns,” the article further reported.

Grand Jury Report

The report shared multiple statistics supporting the concerns outlined and offered an explanation for issuing it.

“We concluded that the police force was receiving adequate attention from other investigative bodies…However, the Grand Jury learned that the issues surrounding the police force are related to other issues of oversight and management within city government. In particular, we noted the average tenure for Antioch City Managers has been less than half the California state average over the last decade (average City Manager tenure of less than 2 years in Antioch vs. 4.5 years for the state).”

Methodology

The report shares the steps taken by the Grand Jury to obtain their information:

• We interviewed government officials in Antioch and experts in city government practices
• and regulation.
• We reviewed press reports and other documents related to Antioch’s city government
• operations and performance.
• We reviewed recordings and transcripts of city council meetings.
• We reviewed city budgets for the past 20 years.
• We also reviewed documents related to city government best practices.

Discussion Points

The report then offered three main discussion points and 15 specific findings about the City of Antioch and its governance providing details for each. The discussion points matched the three challenges outlined in the report:

• Excessive City Manager Turnover is a Negative for Antioch;
• High Employee Vacancy Rates Negatively Impact City Services; and
• Brown Act Compliance

Findings

The report summarizes the findings by the Grand Jury investigation, as follows:

F1. Antioch’s City Manager has broad responsibility to ensure the efficient operation of the city, including supervision of an approximately $100 million general fund budget and an authorized staff of over 400 employees.

F2. The city began the process of recruiting a new permanent City Manager in January 2024. As of June 10, 2024, no hiring decision has been announced.

F3. As outlined in both the City Manager job description and in city recruitment materials, the City Manager position requires a qualified and experienced individual.

F4. There has been a lack of continuity in City Managers in Antioch, with six City Managers or Acting City Managers since December 2013.

F5. Under city ordinances the City Council, including the Mayor, has no direct authority to direct, supervise, hire, or fire any city employees, other than the City Manager and City Attorney (Ordinance 246-A).

F6. The Mayor and City Council members have on occasion overstepped their authority in seeking to make personnel decisions, including terminating the then Public Works Director in December 2022, in ways not permitted by city ordinance (Antioch City Code § 2-2.06 and § 2-2.10).

F7. The Mayor and City Council members have on occasion sought to conduct meetings with City Staff without the approval or involvement of the City Manager, as required by city ordinance (Antioch City Code § 2-2.10).

F8. Antioch’s city government had a 21.6% employee vacancy rate as of February 2024, roughly four-times the national average for government agencies.

F9. In the absence of a permanent City Manager since March 2023, the city has deferred hiring new department heads when openings occur.

F10. The Police, Public Works and Community Development departments currently are without permanent department heads.

F11. Seven of the eleven most senior positions in Antioch city government are currently held by acting or part-time personnel, including City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Directors of Community Development, Police Services, and Public Works (all acting) and the Directors of Economic Development and Recreation (both part-time).

F12. The employee vacancy rate is above the city-wide average in the Public Works Department (26% vacancy rate) and Community Development Department (35% vacancy rate), both of which currently do not have permanent directors.

F13. Recruitment and retention of staff has been impacted by the absence of a permanent City Manager and the lack of permanent department heads in multiple city departments.

F14. The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office conducted an investigation into alleged Brown Act violations by Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and Council Members Tamisha Torres-Walker and Monica Wilson, which was forwarded to the Grand Jury.

F15. The District Attorney’s Office noted serious concerns that noncompliance with the Brown Act may have occurred, however, there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt intentional violations of the statute occurred.

Grand Jury Recommendations

In the report, the Grand Jury also issued five recommendations, as follows:

R1. “The Mayor and City Council should follow through on the ongoing process of hiring an experienced and qualified City Manager.

R2. The Mayor and City Council should abide by city regulations (Antioch City Code § 2-2.06 and § 2-2.10) that preclude the Mayor and City Council from having any direct authority to direct, supervise, hire or fire any city employee, other than the City Manager and City Attorney.

R3. The new City Manager should, within 6 months of their appointment to the position of City Manager, recruit and appoint permanent department heads to fill current department head vacancies.

R4. By 1/1/2025 the City Council should direct the City Manager to undertake a study to determine the factors leading to the city’s high employee turnover and vacancy rates.

R5. By 1/1/2025 the Mayor and City Council should consider directing the City Manager and

City Attorney to organize an annual training session focused on Brown Act requirements and compliance for the Mayor, City Council members, relevant city employees and members of city boards and commissions.

Written Response Required by Sept. 13, Six Months to Implement Recommendations

The report asks for a written response from the city council by Sept. 13, 2024, required by state law, providing whether the council agrees, disagrees or partially disagrees with each of the findings and include explanations for each one with which they either disagree or partially disagree. It also requires the council members outline how they are going to implement the recommendations or if they cannot, why not. The council has six months to implement the recommendations.

See Grand Jury Foreperson’s Cover Letter to Report

See Grand Jury Report 2405 Challenges Facing The City of Antioch

Only Hernandez-Thorpe, Barbanica Respond to Questions for Councilmembers

Questions were sent Tuesday evening to all five council members asking for their comments about the three matters and the direction given by the Grand Jury. They were also asked, besides the search for a new city manager, what is being done to fill the staff vacancies and stem the tide of City employees leaving. The council members were also asked where they are in the process of hiring a permanent city manager, if they have interviewed any candidates, yet, how many, and if they have set a date for the process to be completed.

Hernandez-Thorpe, Wilson and Torres-Walker were specifically asked why they held meetings together outside of either closed session or regular city council meetings, how many private meetings were held at which the three were present, and if any city business was ever discussed.

They were also asked if the discussions involved the hiring of former City Manager Cornelius “Con” Johnson, restructuring the Public Works Department, hiring a city engineer and/or redistricting the city’s electoral map, as is included in the report, and if not, what was discussed during the meetings.

Finally, all five were asked what their response will be to the Grand Jury as requested.

Mayor Has Campaign Spokesman, Former City PIO Respond with Statement

Hernandez-Thorpe responded Tuesday night writing simply, “Rolando will respond on my behalf. Thanks! -LH.” The mayor was referring to Rolando Bonilla, his re-election campaign’s “Communications Director”, and the City’s previous public information officer whose contract was terminated last year. That occurred following the controversy over a press release with words attributed to then-Police Chief Steve Ford critical of the Antioch Police Officers Association, which Ford denied saying. Bonilla said he was later offered the job back by Acting City Manager Forrest Ebbs who was appointed after City Manager Con Johnson was placed on paid leave, and provided a copy of an email between Bonilla and Ebbs as proof. (See related articles here, here and here)

Bonilla wrote, “The Mayor isn’t going to waste his time responding to conspiracy theories, as he is focused on reforming a city government that was so unaccountable that it allowed its police department to publicly embrace a culture of hate and racism that would still be in place today were in [sic] not for the FBI intervening. 

As far as the Brown Act, If the civil grand jury believed that the Mayor did something wrong then they should have had the guts to have detailed the allegations with facts. Instead, they hid behind a letter that had zero evidence of wrong but hid behind the word ‘possible’. Weak.”

Hernandez-Thorpe was reminded the Grand Jury is requiring a response from the city council by Sept. 13 and it was pointed out to him that Bonilla’s response did not answer the questions sent to the mayor and councilmembers. The questions were sent again to Hernandez-Thorpe.

Bonilla responded with the same statement. After pressing the mayor again for answers to the questions about the other issues and recommendations from the Grand Jury, Hernandez-Thorpe’s campaign spokesman wrote, “You got your answers. Run it if you want, or don’t. That’s all you are getting.”

Barbanica Posts Video Calling for Resignation of Mayor, Councilwomen, Further Investigation

About an hour after the questions were emailed by the Herald, District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica posted a video on his YouTube channel and his county Supervisor’s campaign Facebook page Tuesday evening in which he called for the resignation of his three council colleagues.

“Last year the DA’s Office got a report from somebody that said that these Brown Act violations were occurring,” the retired police sergeant stated. “A criminal investigation was conducted at that time.”

“They in turn forwarded that off to the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury who launched an investigation,” he continued. “When they do those investigations, they’re done in secrecy.”

“Yes, they believe Brown Act violations possibly occurred, here, in secret meetings that were conducted at Mayor Thorpe’s house with all three of those members outside of the view of the public, with no other council members there and the public not having the ability to attend the meeting and it wasn’t properly noticed,” Barbanica shared. “That is a secret meeting where people collude, essentially is what the Brown Act is designed to guard against, issues of concern.” He then mentioned the matters believed to be discussed outlined in the DA’s letter.

“They can’t prove the content of the meeting,” he continued about the DA’s Office and Grand Jury’s findings. “Often what that’s from is people not talking about what occurred.”

“I’m urging…the two council members and mayor to step down,” the councilman stated. “Do the right thing.” This is not the way cities are supposed to operate. This is supposed to be open to the public, fair, transparent. This is not transparency.”

Barbanica also urged “DA Becton to reopen a criminal investigation and investigate this to the fullest extent of the law. I realize there are prior relationships there. If, in fact, you don’t feel comfortable doing that, please refer it over to the state Attorney General and have it investigated, there.”

“This has got to stop,” he exclaimed. “Many of us have felt that this has been occurring for some time. But now we have the DA’s Office saying, ‘hey, we think it might be, as well’ and we have the Civil Grand Jury saying, ‘we, too, think it might be, as well.’”

“I urge them to probe further into this and find out if criminal acts did in fact happen and if they did, prosecute them,” Barbanica stated. He then reiterated his call for “all the members, just do the right thing and step down.”

“We all know we can’t violate the Brown Act and I’m calling on the county Board of Supervisors to back me publicly, in this request, not only to the DA’s Office but to the members on the Antioch City Council, as well,” he concluded.

The mayor and councilwomen were then asked for their responses to Barbanica’s video.

Hernandez-Thorpe Says They Weren’t Meetings, Won’t Respond to Barbanica

But when reached for comment, later, the mayor said, “What I’m not going to do is get caught up in Barbanica’s nonsense.”

He then responded to the allegations of Brown Act violations saying, “We’ve had get-togethers at my house but not meetings. My house has always been the gathering place. The law is very clear and what you can’t do is have a discussion where you’ve had a predetermination where the public can’t participate. That didn’t happen.

“I appreciate the Grand Jury took a long view in terms of staffing issues. But the issue, for example in the Maintenance Department is compaction,” Hernandez-Thorpe stated. “There’s not enough pay differential between leadership and subordinates. But I can tell you we are dealing with it.”

Regarding low staffing levels in the police department, he said, “I’m sorry but they caused this problem internally,” referring to the  FBI and DA investigations including for the racist text scandal.

About the report, Hernandez-Thorpe said, “We’ve had it for a couple weeks. The Grand Jury calls you in for the findings and they did that with Barbanica and me.”

The council is already addressing the first of the recommendations. Asked about hiring a new, permanent city manager the mayor said, “We’re close to the end. I can tell you that. We’ll probably have this wrapped in a month or month-and-a-half. What I will be doing is visiting the candidate and other council members are welcome to do it as well to spend some time with the candidate to see if it feels right.

Regarding the other recommendations and the required response letter Hernandez-Thorpe said, “We’ve never done it before. We’ll figure it out. It can be helpful. We’ve changed the Animal Shelter based on the Grand Jury’s recommendations.”

“There are times we have clearly violated the Brown Act,” he continued. “The CDBG Committee was meeting without notices. So, when I became mayor, I fixed that. When we put (former City Manager) Con (Johnson) on paid leave, Barbanica, Monica and Lori violated the law. I went on camera and said we messed up.”

“If we did something wrong we’re more than happy to correct it,” the mayor added.

“We’re all Democrats and tend to lean progressive. We don’t have to have secret meetings. We just tend to agree,” he explained.

Hernandez-Thorpe then shared statistics of the council’s votes as an argument about not just he and the two council members agreeing most of the time. He said, “Of 525 votes in 2021, 17 were 3-2 votes.”

The information is based on research by the Municipal Fellow working in City Hall funded by the Urban League, the mayor shared. Hernandez-Thorpe said he told him to look at voting trends. “In terms of split votes, we’ve had 4-1 votes 16 times and 4-0-1 votes when someone abstained, were 48 times. He looked at all of the votes.”

Former City Manager Con Johnson Denies Attending Gatherings at Mayor’s Home, Blames City Attorney

When asked if he had been in attendance at any of the gatherings where the mayor and two council members allegedly discussed city business, former City Manager Cornelius “Con” Johnson said, “No. I was not involved in any of those shenanigans. I was not part of any hiring process. I was not involved in either of those things. I was not at Lamar’s house when it came to my hiring or to the redistricting.”

“I do know the council was aware of it on other issues,” he continued. “I did send notices about violations to (City Attorney) Thomas Smith.”

“I think the city council started on a slippery slope. They were disclosing information to the press that was unlawful,” Johnson stated. “I do know that I did bring possible Brown Act violations. I blame Thomas because he failed to keep the council safe. It’s the city attorney who is to make sure the city council doesn’t cross that line. I can only speak to what I brought to Thomas, the city attorney of the Brown Act violations.”

Barbanica Says Witness Approached Him Before Going to DA

When reached later for answers to the questions emailed to him specifically about the issues of city staff leadership turnover and vacancies, Barbanica stated, “We’re in a sad state of affairs right now because a lot of the employees who have come into the city have seen what’s going on from the Grand Jury and DA’s office, and when they see opportunities in other cities, they take them.”

“We either need a full commitment from the council to do things the right way or we need a new council,” he said.

He was then asked why he’s calling for their resignations, now knowing he has more than five months remaining in his term, as Barbanica is running for county supervisor not re-election, and will have to continue to work with the mayor and two councilwomen. The councilman said, “This is a much bigger picture and nobody should stand silent just to get a third vote when we have serious violations that are occurring at the expense of the city. If that means I don’t have a third vote for calling this out for what it is, then so be it.”

Asked about the response letter required by the Grand Jury, Barbanica doubled down on his call for reopening the investigation.

“I will be responding individually to the Grand Jury and my recommendation in my response is to stand with me to pressure the DA’s office or the Attorney General’s office to reopen the investigation,” he stated.

“This is betrayal to the community and to the people they work with on the council,” the District 3 councilman exclaimed. “This is totally contrary to the way the council is supposed to operate. To look at us on the council and members of the community in the eye, knowing all along that this is a predetermined vote, that is betrayal to the community.”

“I will tell you the person who shared this information that led to the investigation came to me with it,” Barbanica offered. “By the time it got to the Grand Jury they were talking to multiple people. I sat with that person and talked with them and learned of the information at one point.”

“But I have assured that person I will not be the one to reveal their identity to the public,” the councilman added.

Mayor’s Former Love Interest Told DA, Grand Jury 3 Councilmembers Discussed Redistricting in Private

Both Antioch City Clerk Ellie Householder and Lacey Ferguson, Hernandez-Thorpe’s former friends had a falling out with him following, had a falling out with him following settlement by the Board of Supervisors of the sexual harassment claims against him in 2022. The women were each provided with the DA’s Office letter, cover letter from the Grand Jury foreperson and the report and asked if they were in attendance at any of the same gatherings at the mayor’s home, as he and the two council members. They were also asked, if so, do they remember what was discussed by the three council members, if they spoke with anyone in the Contra Costa DA’s Office or the Grand Jury, and for any other information they’d like to provide.

Ferguson responded, “I was a cooperating witness in the investigation, and you can reach out to the DA for any info you need regarding that. I live in another state.”

“I believe my recorded interview is the only evidence used in front of the Grand Jury to confirm discussions regarding redistricting, as I didn’t feel it was right to do to Lori.” She was referring to the gerrymandering by the three council members that created a new Council District 3 and 4, moving Ogorchock into Wilson’s neighboring district. It prevents Ogorchock from running for re-election this year. (See related article)

First Amendment Coalition CEO Says Private Discussions Violate the Law

After reading the letter from the DA’s Office, the cover letter from the Grand Jury foreperson and the report, David Snyder, CEO of the First Amendment Coalition, a government watchdog organization responded, “I’d say that while neither the DA’s letter nor the grand jury report definitely conclude that members of the city council violated the Brown Act, it appears there was substantial evidence that was that case. That’s very troubling. Public officials meeting in private to discuss such consequential matters as the redistricting of the city’s electoral map is a breach of the public trust, not to mention a violation of state law.”

Attempts to reach Householder and additional efforts to reach Wilson, Torres-Walker and Ogorchock were unsuccessful prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

For more information read the complete Brown Act state open meeting law.

Can face up to 6 months in jail, $1,000 fine

Torres-Walker absent

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 25, 2024, the Antioch City Council on a 4-0 vote passed an ordinance banning organizers and advertisers of and spectators at sideshows. The matter was finally dealt with after discussing the matter since last fall and holding two previous votes, one which adopted an ordinance without targeting spectators and the follow up vote, for which none of the three council members present supported it. (See related articles here, here, here and here)

Most of the residents who spoke during public comments on the agenda item were opposed to including a ban on spectators citing possible constitutional issues and profiling by police, and concerns that those stuck in their cars could be cited.

Before hearing from residents during the public hearing, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe said, “The city attorney would have acted as the proponent” but was absent from the meeting. The mayor then asked who would be the opponent, resident Alexander Broom volunteered and was given 10 minutes to speak.

“There are some large concerns I have with Attachment A which goes after the spectators,” he said. “I don’t think there’s a crime that I could be a witness to and be guilty of a crime. I think there are some constitutional issues there.”

“Anyone who is found to be within 200 feet witnessing or observing a sideshow,” he pointed out as one example.

“There are multiple instances that I would go to part of car culture, then you have people who show up and ruin the event,” he stated. “Me just being present doesn’t mean I’m a participant. This ordinance…is far too broad. I would encourage you to not include the spectator portion.”

“I had one of my friends come out to one of these events and a car show broke out. He was profiled,” he stated. “I could face up to six months in jail for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.”

“There are so many other routes you can go after spectators for this disturbance,” he said. “I think this opens up the city to more lawsuits…to more civil rights violations.”

“I’m open to compromise. I’d rather see the second ordinance go forward that doesn’t include spectators,” he concluded. “This is far too broad.”

Ralph Hernandez said, “These car culture violators should figure out how to lawfully and peacefully cruise. You should keep option 1 to include spectators.”

These are not really spectators. They’re encouraging bad conduct In law, that’s aiding and abetting,” he continued. “I think the police are smart enough…to make differentiation who is a spectator. How do those people claim they’re merely parked there?” he asked. “Come on you have to sell that to someone else.”

“The 200-feet limit, it’s appropriate because these sideshows take up a lot of space,” Hernandez continued. “Is that car culture? They’re violators of the law…by those actively participating, drivers, blockers. If they don’t want to be considered a violator they should not go there.”

“Their cell phones should also be confiscated,” he added. “It’s dangerous. It’s not a football game.”

Teshina Garrett, ACCE Antioch asked, “Who or what is considered a spectator?” and then spoke of her experience being stuck due to a sideshow. “We took photos…of people doing stupid stuff in the middle of the street. Does that make us a spectator?”

“Use these drones, Take their license plates, confiscate their vehicles,” she added.

Resident Dr. Kimberly Payton, Vice President of the NAACP East County Branch, spoke next about her own experience of getting stuck in traffic due to a sideshow. “Therefore, I don’t understand how you can tell a spectator and someone who is stuck. I just encourage you to consider the definition of a spectator if that’s the route the council is going.”

Andrew Becker also shared about “a sideshow that popped up. Within two minutes there were 200 people there. They were jumping on my car. I understand there’s a subjective component there. I also understand you have to have these tools. It’s the individuals…who are driving these things. I’m wondering if…an individual who is cited, they can have it reviewed by the Oversight committee. I think that would be monumental. It might alleviate some of the concerns here.”

Gavin Payton asked, “Some of the sideshows are actually dangerous for cars and for pets, the next day because they’re throwing bottles and the glass is breaking on the curbs and the bushes. Is there going to be some kind of action for that, as well?”

A resident named Devin said, “We really need to determine what a spectator is. We all know that the definition that some will use is not fair to everyone. People can determine who’s participating in these things, who’s taking videos and advertising these things. This is a problematic issue we are having in this city. But the language…people being accused of being a spectator, but they weren’t. Two hundred feet…that’s not fair.”

A woman named Laura said, “I am not an expert on car culture but I’m an excellent driver…and I am a parent. I think it’s dangerous to include spectators …because…systemic racism is a thing. So, I don’t think spectators should be included in this.”

Louise Green spoke last saying, “Using the simple word spectator is scary to everyone. I think this is more targeted to spectator participants. It’s a game they play. They were throwing T-shirts over their license plates. They’re actually throwing their bodies into the cars. You’ll have to put the spectator clause in there. Unless you can get real specific on the language, they are spectators, but a participant spectator. They have racing guns that they signal when the police are coming. There were maybe five people on the sidewalk. But the 200 were spectator participants. They get out of their vehicles. If I’m trapped in my car, they’re going to know, they’re not part of it. We do have to include them because they’re part of the problem.”

Council Discussion

Barbanica spoke first saying, “We’re talking, here about active participants. Not someone sitting in their cars. There’s also a big difference with someone videoing, when an officer rolls up. They say, officer, ‘here’s my phone.’”

“They leapfrog ahead to the next sideshow. It’s very detrimental to the community,” he stated. “This has terrorized the community long enough.”

“These are roving sideshows that are very organized. We have to go after people who are active participants,”

“These sideshows are getting more and more frequent and they’re roving around the city,” Ogorchock stated. “I would ask the city attorney’s office if we can increase the penalties not just $1,000.”

“A San Joaquin Sheriff would not release the cars from a sideshow until the participants’ court dates,” she shared. “These cars are part of evidence.”

“I think we should also look at reimbursement for the use of our resources,” Ogorchock continued. “As we as community members, these are our dollars. These people, the majority of them are coming from outside the community.”

“This is a quality-of-life issue,” she stated. “If we can’t add these to the ordinance toight

Wilson said, “I’m going to steal the term spectator participant. These spectator participants…they’re filming and livestreaming it to let their friends know where they are. We need to hold those participants accountable along with the organizers and advertisers.’

“I betcha there are people from inside our community,” she added.

“We need to start talking about why is this happening. What’s the root cause?” Wilson asked. “We definitely need to include something about the spectators.”

Hernandez-Thorpe spoke last saying, “this doesn’t necessarily stop sideshows. These are tools that once sideshows are happening they can be used. These aren’t preventative. What actually prevents sideshows is determining who is starting them. But unfortunately, our traffic division has been decimated.”

“I’m all for all of them, spectators, organizers and those who advertise,” he stated. “If we pass something tonight it will come back late July and will go into effect 30 days later, at the end of the summer months. If we need to make changes, we do it in the fall.”

“The technology in the police department in my opinion allows them to differentiate between a spectator,” the mayor shared. “Let’s pass something now, tonight and build on it and not let perfection be the enemy of progress.”

Ogorchock then made a motion saying, “I’m going to add” then read the ordinance that included banning spectators, “including not releasing vehicles until court dates and reimburse costs of resource.”

The Assistant City Attorney said, “I think there are some concerns…that we can’t address tonight” in response to a question from Barbanica.

No one seconded the motion.

Barbanica then moved approval of the ordinance including spectators as written. It passed 4-0.

Ogorchock then asked, “that we come back with the two proposals.” But both Barbanica and Wilson had already left the dais, so the mayor said, “Uh, no. There’s no consensus. Everybody left.” They then took a two-minute recess.

She tried again following the break but none of the other council members supported her proposals.

Ordinance Details

The ordinance adopted includes the following:

City Council introduced the proposed ordinance adding Chapter 4 to Title 4 (Public Safety) to the Antioch Municipal Code, which prohibits organizing, advertising, and being a spectator at street racing, sideshows, and reckless driving exhibitions;

Organizing or Advertising Street Races, Sideshows, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions Prohibited

It is unlawful for any person to knowingly organize a street race, sideshow, reckless driving exhibition, or exhibition of speed conducted within the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.

B. It is unlawful for any person to advertise, within the City, a street race, sideshow, or exhibition of speed conducted or to be conducted in the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.

C. It is unlawful for any person to advertise online, including on social media, a street race, sideshow, or exhibition of speed conducted or to be conducted in the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.

Spectators at Sideshows, Street Races, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions Prohibited

It is unlawful for any individual who to be knowingly present as a spectator, either on a public street or highway, or on private property open to the general public without the consent of the owner, operator, or agent thereof, at an illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition.

B. It is unlawful for any individual to be knowingly present as a spectator, either on a public street or highway, or on private property open to the general public without the consent of the owner, operator, or agent thereof, where preparations are being made for an illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition.

C. Local law enforcement shall have the authority to cite any spectator in violation of this Chapter with an administrative citation.

D. An individual is present at the illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition if that individual is within two hundred (200) feet of the location of the event, or within two hundred (200) feet of the location where preparations are being made for the event.

Enforcement

A. Any person who violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a maximum of six (6) months in jail, a fine of $1,000, or both, unless at the discretion of the district attorney or a court of competent jurisdiction, the violation is reduced to an infraction.

Read complete Antioch Sideshow Ordinance.

The ordinance requires a second reading which will occur at the July 23rd meeting and if passed, will go into effect 30 days later.

Resolution claims Antonio Hernandez committed 12 violations of board policies and bylaws, federal HIPPA law and Brown Act open meeting law cited

By Allen D. Payton

During the Antioch School Board meeting on Wednesday, June 25, 2024, Board President Antonio Hernandez faces a vote to censure him proposed by fellow Trustee and Board Vice President Mary Rocha for publicly divulging personnel and closed session matters and to the media, among other reasons. It occurred while he spoke with an NBC Bay Area TV about the accusations by district employees of bullying by a supervisor and called for Superintendent Stephanie Anello’s resignation for not handling the situation they way he would have preferred.

At the end of the May 22nd board meeting, Rocha read a statement calling for the censure to be placed on the next board meeting agenda. However, Hernandez pointed out that Area 3 Trustee Dr. Clyde Lewis would be absent for that meeting, so the item was placed on Wednesday night’s meeting agenda. (See 3:10:00 mark of the meeting video)

Under Resolutions for Immediate Action, agenda Item 15F reads, Resolution No. 2023-24-57 Censure of Board President Antonio Hernandez. It outlines 12 times he violated board policies and bylaws, federal HIPPA law and the state’s Brown Act open meeting law which includes:

• Board President Hernandez divulged confidential, privileged information regarding personnel matters with members of the media;
• Board President Hernandez divulged confidential, privileged information regarding closed session matters with members of the media;
• Board President Hernandez violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPPA) Act by divulging confidential health-related information of a District employee to the media;
• Board President Hernandez, violated Board Policy 9200, by speaking out of turn, in public, regarding private and confidential personnel matters, appearing to take on an administrative role;
• Board President Hernandez, violated Board Policy 9200, by acting in an administrative capacity to resolve complaints;
• Board President Hernandez, sought to evaluate the Superintendent in a public forum, outside of the closed session arena in violation of Board Policy 2140;
• Board President Hernandez, used his public Facebook account to post confidential correspondence from a District paid for legal counsel, breaking the confidentiality of the document posted, and posting confidential correspondence to the Board of trustees, which was directed to a closed session item in violation of Board Bylaw 9012;
• Board President Hernandez attempted to schedule two Special Board Meetings, while also being told that there would not be a quorum for the meeting;
• Board President actually commandeered the Board Room to hold an unsanctioned meeting with members of the public, placing members of the administration in potential jeopardy of violating California’s Open Meeting Law (the “Brown Act”);
• Board President Hernandez usurped the authority of the Board by appearing to speak on behalf of the Board or Trustees in media news reports, via his Facebook posts, and in public meetings in violation of Board Bylaws 9010 and 9012;
• Board President Hernandez, failed to implement Board Bylaw 9121, when a local media reporter verbally attacked the Superintendent during a Governing Board Meeting;
• the Governing Board hereby finds and determines that Board President Hernandez’s conduct is unacceptable, unprofessional, and a violation of the Board Bylaws and State Laws cited above.

The proposed resolution concludes with four resolutions and orders including:

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and ORDERED that the Governing Board of the Antioch Unified School District hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

…that based on these recitals, the Governing Board of the Antioch Unified School District hereby formally censures Board President Hernandez and proclaims publicly that this Board disapproves of the aforementioned conduct and finds it to be a violation of the Board Bylaws and State Laws and constitutes unacceptable behavior that shall not be tolerated.

…that Board President Hernandez shall treat fellow Board members and all District staff with dignity and respect at all times and in all forums, and that he refrains from any further violation of Board Policies and Bylaws.

…that any further violations of Board Policies and Bylaws by Board President Hernandez may result in his removal as Board President.”

See Resolution.

See Meeting Agenda.

The school board meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the board room at the Antioch Unified School District office building at 510 G Street in Antioch’s historic downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed live on the District’s YouTube channel.

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom announced on Tuesday, June 18, 2024, his appointment of 15 Superior Court Judges, which include one in Contra Costa County; two in Los Angeles County; one in Marin County; one in Napa County; one in Riverside County; one in Sacramento County; three in San Diego County; one in San Francisco County; two in San Joaquin County; one in San Mateo County; and one in Santa Clara County.

Michael Nieto, of Contra Costa County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Nieto has served as an Assistant District Attorney at the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office since 2022 and has been a Deputy District Attorney there since 1997.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Nieto worked in private practice as an associate attorney for McCutcheon Doyle Brown & Enersen from June 1994 to Dec. 1996 and earned a Bachelors of Arts in Government from Harvard University.

He has served as an Adjunct Professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco since 2013. Nieto earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California College of the Law (formerly Hastings), San Francisco. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Clare Maier. Nieto is a Democrat.

The annual compensation for each of the judicial positions is $238,479.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

“The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative” – CA Supreme Court

“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory…the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution” – Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability

By Allen D. Payton

In response to a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state legislature, the California Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled, today, Thursday, June 20, 2024, the measure known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act amounts to an illegal constitutional revision and removed it from the November election ballot. However, proponents vowed to continue to explore their legal options and efforts to minimize

According to Ballotpedia, “The initiative would have amended the California Constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes. The initiative would have also required new or increased taxes to be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters. It would also have increased the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. The increased vote requirements for new or higher taxes would have not applied to citizen-initiated state ballot measures. As of 2024, state tax increases require approval by a two-thirds vote in each chamber or a simple majority vote at a statewide election

In addition, a ‘yes’ vote on the measure would have supported “amending the state constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and to require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate.”

However, according to the Associated Press, “The biggest impact…would have been that the measure threatened to retroactively reverse most tax increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022. Local governments warned they would have lost billions of dollars in revenue that had previously approved by voters. And it would have threatened recent statewide tax increases.”

Proponents

Proponents of the measure, Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability, self-described as “a bipartisan coalition of homeowners, taxpayers and businesses committed to ensuring California remains affordable for families and accountable to its voters,” led the campaign in support of the initiative.  The campaign explained the initiative, saying, “The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will give voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians. The measure increases accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians.”

Supporters included the California Business Roundtable, California NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The campaign had received $17.8 million in contributions.

According to the NAIOP, the measure would have given “voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians.” It would have increased “accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians. The Act doesn’t cut any current state or local government funding. It simply gives voters the right to vote on all future tax increases and stops working families from paying billions more in “hidden taxes” imposed by unelected bureaucrats.  They are currently gathering signatures and will need $70 million in fundraising efforts to pass the ballot measure in November of 2022.”

View materials on the proposed ballot measure.

Supporters Respond, Will Seek Legal Options, Continue Efforts

In response to the court’s ruling, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) campaign issued the following statement from Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) and Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association:

“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory. Governor Newsom has effectively erased the voice of 1.43 million voters who signed the petition to qualify the Taxpayer Protection Act for the November ballot. Most importantly, the governor has cynically terminated Californians’ rights to engage in direct democracy despite his many claims that he is a defender of individual rights and democracy. Evidently, the governor wants to protect democracy and individual rights in other states, but not for all Californians. 

We are disappointed that the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution, disregarding long-standing precedent that they should not intervene in an election before voters decide qualified initiatives.

Direct democracy and our initiative process are now at risk with this decision, showing California is firmly a one-party state where the governor and Legislature can politically influence courts to block ballot measures that threaten their ability to increase spending and raise taxes. Using the courts to block voters’ voices is the latest effort from the Democrats’ supermajority to remove any accountability measures that interfere with their agenda – a failed agenda that continues to drive up the cost of living with little accountability and few results. 

This ruling sends a damning message to businesses in California and across the country that it is politically perilous to invest and grow jobs for the future. 

In light of this ruling and the state’s large budget deficit, a huge amount of tax increases are on the way that are sure to make California’s cost of living even higher. 

We will continue to explore our legal options and fight for the people’s right to hold their government accountable through direct democracy.” 

———–

Opponents

The measure was opposed by Governor Newsom, CA Attorney General Rob Bonta, FSCME California, SEIU California State Council, California Special Districts Association, California State Association of Counties, and League of California Cities. Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), said, “This deceptive initiative would undermine the rights of local voters and their elected officials to make decisions on critical local services that residents rely upon. It creates major new tax loopholes at the expense of residents and will weaken our local services and communities.”

Bonta had relabeled the measure’s title to, “Limits Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to Raise Revenues for Government Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” The summary he required to be included on signature petition sheets read as follows: “For new or increased state taxes currently enacted by two-thirds vote of Legislature, also requires statewide election and majority voter approval. Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising vote requirement to two-thirds. Eliminates voters’ ability to advise how to spend revenues from proposed general tax on same ballot as the proposed tax. Expands definition of ‘taxes’ to include certain regulatory fees, broadening application of tax approval requirements. Requires Legislature or local governing body set certain other fees.”

In spite of that, supporters were still able to gather the required signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The signature gathering occurred in 2022.

Court’s Decision

According to information about the case #S281977 entitled LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. WEBER (HILTACHK) on the state Supreme Court’s website, it “presented the following issues: (1) Does the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) constitute an impermissible attempted revision of the California Constitution by voter initiative? (2) Is this initiative measure subject to invalidation on the ground that, if adopted, it would impair essential government functions?”

The court wrote in its unanimous opinion, “we conclude that the TPA would clearly ‘accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision’ of the (state) Constitution. The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative.”

“It is within the people’s prerogative to make these changes, but they must be undertaken in a manner commensurate with their gravity: through the process for revision set forth in Article XVIII of the Constitution,” the decision continued.

The court concluded by “directing the (CA) Secretary of State to refrain from taking steps to place” the initiative “on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide.”

However, Section 3 of that Article clearly reads, “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” Coupal of the HJTA was asked to explain what the court is referring to and what other approach or process should the proponents have followed. He did not respond prior to publication time.

See Court ruling, here.

For more information about the ballot measure and the coalition that supported it visit www.taxpayerprotection.com.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

6 face possible permanent decertification as peace officers

There have been no arbitrations that have occurred to date according to City staff

“Virtually all will get their jobs back.” – APOA & defense attorney Mike Rains. May call mayor, councilwoman to testify.

“…we are pleased to see that the investigation into these incidents has concluded.” – APOA VP Sgt. Loren Bledsoe

By Allen D. Payton

A report in the East Bay Times on Monday, June 17, 2024, provided information that’s been sought for months by local media about the number of Antioch Police Officers who have been terminated as a result of both the FBI and text scandal investigations over the past two years. According to the report, 10 officers have been fired and the information was based on “recently obtained emails department commanders sent to city officials.”

In the report he cited three more officers who had quit because they, “knew that harsh discipline was imminent, city documents say.” The Times also reported, “six officers were given unpaid suspensions…one received a written reprimand” and “One officer was cleared of wrongdoing.” That doesn’t include former Officer Matthew Nutt who was acquitted by a jury last Thursday of assault against a man he arrested two years ago.

That information was confirmed by Antioch District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica on Monday which he had just confirmed that with City staff and was given authorization to share it with the media. He said, “10 officers were terminated, three resigned prior to any discipline being implemented, two were demoted, six were suspended and one was cleared of all charges from an independent investigation, not including Matthew Nut.”

The Times’ report claimed, “city officials attempted to fire or discipline several more officers who ultimately won arbitration hearings and got the decisions reversed or reduced, according to multiple officials with firsthand knowledge.”

However, asked about the arbitrations Barbanica said, “I am not aware of any arbitrations that have yet occurred. It doesn’t mean they haven’t.”

After a call to City staff, during a brief, follow up conversation Barbanica clarified saying firmly, “There have been no arbitrations that have occurred to date.”

Of the 10 officers who were terminated, six also face decertification as peace officers.

APOA Attorney Confident Officers “Will Get Their Jobs Back”

When asked about the 10 terminations, defense attorney Mike Rains, who also represents the Antioch Police Officers Association (APOA), said, “I am confident they will get their jobs back. There were terminations who were charged criminally and those who sent the text messages. We (his law firm) conflicted out of the criminal cases.”

“Nutt wasn’t involved at all in the text case,” he added.

“Virtually all will get their jobs back,” Rains stated. “Six cases are pending right now for the texting that were terminated that we represent, that I’m confident they’ll get their jobs back.”

“This is a way overreaction for the text messages on their personal cell phones,” the attorney continued. “The guys who just received them or sent the message back that the City thought was not a condemnation, the City claimed Biased-Based Policing. They threw that out in most of these cases, which is ridiculous. That’s based on officers targeting individuals in the community, that they’re going to get them because of their race and wouldn’t consider targeting people of other races.”

Bias-Based Policing is also known as profiling. According to civilrightspolicing.org, is “Profiling is presuming that someone is involved in criminal activity based on who they are rather than what they have done.”

“The City said, ‘you used a bad word we don’t like, that we think is a racist term and we’re going to fire you for them,’” Rains continued. “Amiri and Rombough had texts that were really offensive. But many of them they were sending they were putting out on chains including 15 people. Some of the officers said they weren’t even reading them.”

As previously reported, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe called for the firing of all the officers investigated for the text scandal in May 2023 and again the following month. In May 2023, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Waker also called for the immediate firing of “officers involved in the racist texting scandal.”.

Asked if that tcould affect the officers’ efforts to regain their jobs Rains said, “I’ll probably subpoena Thorpe to testify. I may call her, too.”

“The mayor’s comments about the entire department are completely misleading,” he added.

APOA Responds

In response to the information released about the 10 terminated officers, APOA Vice President Sgt. Loren Bledsoe wrote, “We acknowledge the recent developments regarding the disciplinary actions taken against several Antioch officers. As a union, we are committed to upholding the highest standards of professionalism and integrity within our ranks.

It is important to note that the APOA cannot comment on ongoing personnel matters. However, we are pleased to see that the investigation into these incidents has concluded.

Moving forward, our focus will be on rebuilding relationships with the community and restoring public trust. We understand the significance of fostering positive connections between law enforcement and the people we serve. We are dedicated to working collaboratively with community leaders, organizations, and residents to ensure public safety and promote a sense of security for all.

We remain committed to continuous improvement, education, and training within our department. We will strive to create an inclusive and equitable environment that reflects the values and expectations of the diverse Antioch community.”

6 Face Possible Permanent Decertification

Beyond being terminated from their positions, six former Antioch Police officers face possible permanent decertification. According to the California Commission on Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) police officers can face decertification for Serious Misconduct. That is defined by the Commission as follows:

1. Dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer.
2. Abuse of power, including, but not limited to, intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.
3. Physical abuse, including, but not limited to, the excessive or unreasonable use of force.
4. Sexual assault as described in subdivision (b) of Penal Code §832.7, and shall extend to acts committed amongst members of any law enforcement agency.
5. Demonstrating bias on the basis of actual or perceived race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officer’s obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner.
6. Acts that violate the law and are sufficiently egregious or repeated as to be inconsistent with a peace officer’s obligation to uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public.
7. Participation in a law enforcement gang.
8. Failure to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct.
9. Failure to intercede when present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary, as determined by an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances.

Five Types of Decertification

The commission publishes the names of any peace officer whose certification is suspended or revoked and the basis for the suspension or revocation. There are five types of decertification:

Ineligible – An individual has been disqualified from eligibility to be a peace officer based on a disqualifying event as set forth in Government Code section 1029.

Revoked – The peace officer has been decertified and may not exercise the duties and powers of a peace officer. A revocation is permanent, and the certification shall not be reactivated.

Voluntary Surrender or Surrender – A person who holds a certificate issued by the commission, knowingly and willingly, returns the certificate to the commission, forfeiting all rights and privileges associated with that certificate. A “surrender” has the same effect of a revocation in that it cannot be reactivated.

Immediate Temporary Suspension or Temporary Suspension – The immediate suspension of a peace officer’s certification, pending the outcome of an investigation related to allegations of serious misconduct, pursuant to Penal Code section 13510.8(d). The “temporary suspension” may be issued under the following circumstances:

• When a peace officer is arrested or indicted for a felony or other crime listed in GC§ 1029,
• When a peace officer is discharged from a law enforcement agency for serious misconduct, or
• When a peace officer has separated from employment as a peace officer during a pending investigation into allegations of serious misconduct.

The temporary suspension remains in effect until either a final determination is made by the Commission or the Executive Director withdraws the “temporary suspension” if a withdrawal is deemed to be warranted

Suspension – a disciplinary action of the Commission wherein a peace officer certification has been suspended for a specified period of time, not to exceed three years. A peace officer whose certification has been suspended may not be assigned duties which include the exercise of peace officer powers.

The six officers have all been fired from their positions with the Antioch Police Department but each of their certifications as police officers are currently under Temporary Suspension as of Monday, June 17, 2024. The list is updated weekly on Monday mornings.

Current APD Sworn Staffing

Interim Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington reported earlier this month to the Police Oversight Commission the names of all the sworn officers currently on the force, including 17 currently on paid leave. As of Monday, June 17, 2024, there are now 76 sworn officers in the department out of 115 in the budget approved by the city council and additional officers will be sworn in next week.

Took jury an hour to find Matthew Nutt not guilty

“Officer Nutt did exactly what he was trained to do and what the law allows him to do in order to control a man wanted for a serious and violent crime,” defense attorney Nicole Pifari

“All the glory to God” – Matthew Nutt

Appealing his termination, City agrees to arbitration

By Allen D. Payton

A year after being terminated then charged with misdemeanor assault during a 2022 traffic stop incident, former Antioch Police officer Matthew Nutt was acquitted by a jury on Thursday, June 13, 2024.

As previously reported, in May 2023, Nutt was terminated from his employment as the result of an internal investigation into his use of force against an individual during a traffic stop on July 1, 2022. During the incident, Mr. Nutt learned the driver of a vehicle stopped for not displaying license plates had an outstanding felony warrant for shooting at an inhabited dwelling or occupied vehicle and conspiracy. Upon placing the individual under arrest, he refused to sit in the back of a police vehicle and displayed physical resistance. Mr. Nutt used force against the arrestee, consisting of a series of punches and kicks, along with knee and elbow strikes.

Nutt was represented by attorney Nicole Pifari, a partner in the Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC Legal Defense Group, whose lead partner,  Mike Rains, represents the Antioch Police Officers Association. According to her bio, “She has successfully defended police officers from criminal prosecutions in both state and federal court, and also represents officers around the state facing administrative investigation, disciplinary appeal, or the trauma of involvement in critical incidents.”

Pifari issued the following statement about the acquittal: “Antioch Police Officer Matthew Nutt Found Not Guilty

Today, after one hour of deliberation, a Contra Costa County Jury acquitted former Antioch Police Officer Matthew Nutt at the conclusion of a one-week trial. Nutt was charged with misdemeanor assault after using force while arresting a man for a felony warrant. He was represented at trial by Nicole Pifari of Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC.

The call originated with a traffic stop where the passenger in the car had a warrant for two felonies related to a drive by shooting. After being handcuffed, the suspect tried to run, then began to resist, leading to a physical struggle at the door of the patrol car with two officers. At well over 300 pounds, the suspect was overpowering the officers when Nutt used a series of body strikes to gain his compliance. 

“First and foremost, we are incredibly grateful to the jury for their work. I remain perplexed by this criminal filing. In my opinion it was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the video. The prosecution failed to call a single percipient witness with the most glaring omission being their failure to call the shooting suspect. Basically, the prosecution tried to ruin a decorated police officer and veteran’s life without any evidence,” said Pifari. 

“Officer Nutt did exactly what he was trained to do and what the law allows him to do in order to control a man wanted for a serious and violent crime,” Pifari added. 

“All the glory to God,” Nutt added. 

When reached for comment about the acquittal Rains said, “I knew the case. I was talking with Nicole about it, the motions before trial and the way the case was going to be prosecuted by (Chief Contra Costa Assistant District Attorney) Simon O’Connell. I had seen the video and we discussed it.

“I couldn’t believe that Simon thought he could ever get a conviction on this case without even offering up a use of force expert who said the use of force was unreasonable,” Rains continued. “He apparently thought he was going to put the video up there. He called a video guy (to testify) who said he was asked to look at the punches that Nutt delivered to the victim.”

“Nicole appropriately asked the video expert, ‘Were you asked to look at what the alleged victim was doing to prompt the officer to do what he did?’ He said, ‘no, I wasn’t asked to do that’,” Rains stated. “To freeze the frame showing what Officer Nutt did and not freeze a frame showing this guy kicking at the officer and refusing to get into the car was entirely misleading. This is a prosecutor who doesn’t care about showing the truth to the jury and they saw it very clearly.”

“The trial only took a few days. It didn’t take the jury long, only an hour to reach a verdict,” Rains shared. “Thats because Simon O’Connell is such a poor prosecutor.”

“Nicole put Nutt on the witness stand. He’s an honest man. The jury believed what he said, and they came back with a unanimous not guilty verdict” Rains continued. “It was a slam dunk win for the defense and what amounted to a condemnation by the jury of Simon O’Connell, (DA) Diana Becton and the District Attorney’s Office for bringing this case.”

Termination Based on Department Policy, Not the Law

According to the Antioch Police Department, Mr. Nutt’s application of force triggered an automatic review of his body-worn camera footage. The reviewing supervisor had concerns about what was depicted in the video and believed Mr. Nutt may have violated Antioch Police policies governing use of force. The supervisor communicated his concerns through official channels, and an internal review was initiated. Mr. Nutt was placed into an assignment with no direct public contact.

After a thorough investigation, Mr. Nutt was sustained on four (4) use of force policy violations, including using unreasonable force, failure to de-escalate, and failure to use alternative tactics. Chief Steven Ford reviewed the findings of the investigation and terminated Mr. Nutt from his employment with the Antioch Police Department on April 21, 2023.

Asked if Nutt’s termination by the department was included in his prosecution, Rains said, “I don’t believe that came in. The administrative side of the case is not usually brought into a criminal case.”

“It’s not based on a violation of the law but only looks at the department policy,” he continued. “The department standard for discipline would be the mere preponderance of the evidence. Understand, a jury can only convict on a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. So, it’s a different standard.”

“The only reason Matthew Nutt was terminated is because it was in the heyday of the text scandal and I know there was immense pressure on Chief Ford,” Rains stated. “I don’t think he wanted to terminate this young man.”

Termination Appealed Will Go to Arbitration With City

“We’ve appealed his termination and have agreed to go to arbitration,” he added.

Asked when that will occur, Rains said, “We don’t have it scheduled yet. We were waiting for the criminal case to end.”

UPDATE: DA’s Office Responds

In response the DA’s Office PIO, Asregadoo wrote, “Though the verdict was not in our favor, we acknowledge the importance of a jury trial in ensuring a fair and impartial legal process.”

June is Elder Abuse Awareness Month; June 15th is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day

Deadline to register: June 13 at 8:30 AM

By Susan Kim, Executive Director, Family Justice Center

Did you know…One in ten Americans aged 60 or older experiences some form of elder abuse? Elders who have been abused are 300% more likely to die than their peers.

Emily Milstein, Staff Attorney for Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, will provide training on Elder Abuse Signs and Legal Remedies during a virtual workshop training on Friday, June 14, 2024, from 10:00-11:30 AM.

The Contra Costa Elder Abuse Prevention Project (EAPP) prevents and combats elder abuse through an active community network that raises awareness and coordinates services. 

Visit cocoelderjustice.org for more information about EAPP.

To register for the training click, here.