Dominique King, who isn’t a teacher allowed to use term, but retired Antioch High principal Louie Rocha can’t

Antioch City Clerk Ellie Householder says, “Educator does not mean teacher,” in spite of the dictionary definition to the contrary.  Uses her own.

By Allen D. Payton

According to the definition found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary online, the word “educator” means “one skilled in teaching : teacher”, “a student of the theory and practice of education” or “an administrator in education.” Yet, the term was allowed as one of the three titles in the ballot designation for one candidate for Antioch City Council in District 3 who isn’t a teacher and doesn’t have a four-year college degree or a teacher’s credential. But it wasn’t allowed for a retired principal who spent most of his career in education and continues to fill in as a substitute principal, including for a week, later this month.

But City Clerk Ellie Householder approved the use of the term by Dominique King, in her first run for city council against retired Antioch High School principal, Louie Rocha, who is also running for city council for the first time. The City Clerk said, “Educator does not mean teacher,” and later explained her reasoning. King claims she educates people through her and her husband’s business, which is how she also uses the title “Businesswoman”.

10-Day Public Review Period of Candidate Ballot Designations

Candidates and anyone can challenge another candidate’s ballot designations during a 10-day public review period following the close of filing. But it takes legal action and a judge’s decision in court to force a change. No challenge to King’s designation was made by Rocha or anyone else.

As previously reported, about the three titles she used in her ballot designation of “Businesswoman / Educator / Consultant” King said, “My ballot designation was reviewed and approved. I trust that if I had not met the necessary requirements during the local and county election review process, my designation would have been rejected.” But she refused to say where she teaches or how she can use the title of “Educator”.

Rocha Told He Can’t Use “Educator” in Ballot Designation Because He’s Retired and Primary Source of Income is His Pension

Candidates can offer three options for their ballot designations. Rocha offered all three, but the first one, “Retired Antioch High School Principal” was more than three words. So, the County Elections Division staff rejected it and called him about it. He also offered “Retired Principal/Educator” but that was rejected by the City Clerk’s Office because he’s retired, even though Rocha says he continues to fill in at schools periodically, as a substitute principal, referred to as an “itinerant”. They settled on Rocha’s third choice of simply, “Retired Principal.”

“After I retired, what’s pretty common, is if we will be available to serve as substitute principals,” he explained. “I’ve worked the last two years as a substitute principal at all levels including at Bidwell High School for a week, later this month.”

Rocha shared with the Herald a copy of the email sent to him by Householder about his ballot designation explaining why he couldn’t use the term “Educator.”

On Aug 1, 2024, at 3:57 PM, Ellie Householder <ehouseholder@antiochca.gov> wrote:

“Good afternoon Mr. Rocha,

I hope you are doing well.

Our office received a call today from Jacob (Stull), Supervisor at Contra Costa County Elections Division, regarding your Ballot Designation. 

Jacob said that your proposed ballot designation has more than 3 words “Retired Antioch High School Principal.”  The 1st alternate ballot designation listed “Retired Principal/Educator”; Educator is not your current position as you stated that you are retired, and your main source of income is your pension.

Jacob did approve your second alternate ballot designation as “Retired Principal.” I simply wanted to share this information with you.

Thank you.  Have a great week.

Best wishes, 

Ellie Householder, MPP

Antioch City Clerk | Elections Official”

——————————–

Questions for Householder, Staff

An email was sent to City Clerk Ellie Householder and her staff  on Friday night, Aug. 23, 2024, asking, how is it that Dominique King can use the ballot designation of “Businesswoman, Educator, Consultant” even though she isn’t a teacher, doesn’t have a four-year college degree nor a teaching credential, yet, her opponent, Louie Rocha can’t use the same term of ‘Educator’, even though he has been in education for most of his career.

They were also provided with a section from the press release announcing King’s campaign which describes her work as follows: “For the last seven years, King has volunteered and supported Antioch families through educational advocacy by helping families with children who need additional educational support, including children with special needs.” The city clerk and staff were then asked why Mrs. King wasn’t required to use the term, “educational advocate” which more accurately describes what she does rather than “Educator”. Finally, they were asked if King had told them that she works as a teacher, and if so, did she tell them where she teaches.

Householder responded on Tuesday, Aug. 27 writing, “Louie stated that he is in fact a Retired Principal and his main source of income was his pension.  ‘Educator’ was also included in his ballot designation.  Unfortunately, we were notified by the Elections Supervisor Jacob (after submitting Louie’s candidate paperwork), that ‘Educator’ was not permissible as Louie is retired.”

So, even though, since he retired, Rocha has been hired periodically as an interim assistant principal and fills in for teachers in the classroom in AUSD schools, which would mean he continues to work as an educator, because it’s not his primary source of income, he can’t use the title of educator.

“For Dominique, a part of her primary profession includes educating, which she explains in her ballot designation worksheet. Educator does not mean teacher,” Householder continued. “When our office reviewed this following the California Code of Regulations – Elections Code, we found that her designation was acceptable, since it is a part of her primary source of income. 

Jacob also advised that their office would review and approve the requested candidate nomination paperwork submitted.”

While King wouldn’t explain to the Herald how she’s an educator or where she teaches, on the website for her and her husband’s business it reads, “Lean in with the Kings is family owned and operated. LIWTK mission is to educate couples and families on how to foster healthy relationships through 1. Utilizing health and wellness. 2. Enlisting the help of professionals 3. Openly speaking from our experiences. 4. Building a supportive and informative community.”

County Elections Supervisor Explains Role, Guidance Provided, Didn’t Approve Ballot Designations

Asked why he denied Rocha’s use of the term “Educator” but approved King’s, Stull said, “The City Clerk is the determining factor for approving ballot designation. The original one was ‘Retired Antioch High School Principal’. But that was too many words. He could say he is a retired principal or retired school principal. We were trying to work with them, the City Clerk’s office.”

Asked if he had seen Rocha’s request for the designation to be “Retired/Principal/Educator,” Stull said, “No. In this case, when we spoke on the phone it was a length issue. We didn’t have the Ballot Designation Worksheet.”

“Alternate 1 was Retired Principal/Educator. You can’t use a retired designation and current designation,” the Elections Supervisor continued. “His Alternate 2 was Retired Principal and that’s what the City Clerk’s Office approved.”

“We reached out to the City Clerk about Rocha’s designation because it exceeded the word limit,” he explained.

“I don’t have Ms. King’s Ballot Designation Worksheet,” Stull stated. “The City sent me the Declaration of Candidacy, which is a form the City and County have. On the form in section 2 you put the name you want printed on the ballot. Ms. King turned in all of that with the city clerk’s office. I don’t have the justification for what that designation she requested. I don’t know if she explained educator differently. I have to go with what the City provided us, Ms. King’s three professions, occupations or vocations.”

Asked how she can use both titles of “Businesswoman” and “Educator” if the educating is done through her business and how the term educator does not mean teacher he said, “I don’t know if there are definitions within the Elections Code to define terms.” A review shows there isn’t a definition for “educator” in the state Elections Code.

The Declaration of Candidacy is not a public document and the City Clerk’s Office staff would not provide it following a request by the Herald.

County Elections Division Sides with the City on Ballot Designations

“It’s supposed to be your principal profession, occupation or vocation, a maximum of three words separated by slashes,” Stull explained. “We have to qualify the candidate, but the final say is with the City, and we side with the City. They’re the filing official. We will provide guidance when needed.”

“We reached out to Rocha because his designation was too long. King’s was fine,” he added.

Additional Questions for City Clerk, Staff

Under the California Code of Regulations Title 2. Administration Division 7. Secretary of State Chapter 7. Ballot Designations in subsection 20716 Unacceptable Ballot Designations it reads, “The following types of activities are distinguished from professions, vocations and occupations and are not acceptable as ballot designations pursuant to Elections Code Section 13107, subdivision (a)(3):

1. Avocations: An avocation is a casual or occasional activity, diversion or hobby pursued principally for enjoyment and in addition to the candidate’s principal profession, vocation or occupation. Avocations may include, but are not limited to, hobbies, social activities, volunteer work (except as set forth in Section 20714.5 of this Chapter), and matters pursued as an amateur.

Householder and the City Clerk’s staff were then asked additional questions, including regarding what she wrote in her response about King. They were asked what “is a part of her primary source of income” that refers to teaching, and if it is through her and her husband’s “Lean In With the Kings” business. While on their website it reads, “LIWTK mission is to educate couples and families on how to foster healthy relationships,” even if that’s the basis for the approval of King’s use of the term in her ballot designation, how can she use both titles of Businesswoman and Educator if the educating is done through her business, and shouldn’t it be one or the other,  Householder and staff were also asked.

Since King hasn’t said if her position as Chief Information Officer for the Oscar Grant Foundation is a paid or volunteer position, and if the latter, it would mean it’s not her profession, vocation or occupation, as is the requirement in the California Code of Regulations for Ballot Designations – Ballot Designations :: California Secretary of State, the City Clerk and staff were asked if that was the position to which King’s title of “Educator” applies.

Householder was specifically asked, since when does the term educator not mean teacher and where she obtained that definition. She was informed that it’s not defined in the State Code of Regulations and that the dictionary definition according to Merriam-Webster is clear that it means “teacher”.

The City Clerk was asked what definition she is using and the source for that definition.

Finally, Householder and her staff were asked if King is a volunteer educational advocate, a part-time columnist for the Clayton/Concord Pioneer, serves as the Chief Information Officer for the Oscar Grant Foundation (either for pay or as a volunteer) and doesn’t have a four-year degree in either education or counseling, then isn’t her work through her LIWTK business done as an amateur.

Candidates Explain, Defend Use of Titles on Ballot Designation Worksheet, King Using Business for All Three Titles

Candidates must submit a Ballot Designation Worksheet with up to three options and justifications for each. After obtaining copies of both King’s and Rocha’s worksheets, which show King is using her “Lean in With the Kings” business as justification for all three ballot titles, more and pointed questions were then sent to Householder and City Clerk staff.

They were asked shouldn’t the different titles be for different jobs a candidate holds or businesses they own or must, or can, they all refer to the same occupation, vocation and profession.

Furthermore, they were informed that in the list of questions on the form that candidates are required to mark boxes next to “Yes” or “No” to and initialize, it reads under question “3. Use more than three total words for your principal professions, vocations, or occupations?”

Householder and her staff were asked, shouldn’t those three words describe three different professions, vocations or occupations and can a candidate use more than one title in their ballot designation to refer to the same profession, vocation or occupation.

King’s Ballot Designation worksheet offered three options including her Proposed option which she was granted, Alternate 1 of “Businesswoman/Consultant” and Alternate 2 of “Businesswoman/Educator”. Beneath the justification for each of the ballot designation options she wrote under “Current or most recent job title: Cofounder Owner Start Date: 2019, Employer Name or Business: Lean In With The Kings llc. Under the name of the “Person who can verify this information” she provided Kenneth King, her husband, as well as his phone number and personal email address. Under King’s second and third choices she merely wrote “Same As Above” for the latter information.

King’s Justification for use of her 1st PVO (profession(s), vocation(s), or occupation) reads, “I co-own this business with my husband. This is my primary source of income. Education make up a large percentage of daily operations. Consulting with client on initiatives & programs is a part of our business model.”

For the Justification for use of 2nd PVO, King wrote, “As a businesswoman consulting is a portion of how we shape initiatives & programs created when outsourcing with companies or organizations.” For the Justification for use of 3rd PVO she wrote, “Education is our focus in how to engage and empower personal, relational and communal relationships. Programs are structured and require planning and preparation.”

Then, for the Justifications for the use of her 1st, 2nd and 3rd PVO’s, even though she only offered two each for her Alternate ballot Designation 1 and 2 she repeatedly wrote, “Same As Above”.

On Rocha’s Ballot Designation Worksheet as Justification for the Proposed Ballot Designation of “Retired Antioch High School Principal”, under Justification for use of 1st PVO he wrote, “I was principal of Antioch High School, retired in 2022.” For the 2nd and 3rd PVO’s he didn’t write anything. Then for the Justification for the Alternate Ballot Designations 1 and 2, Rocha simply wrote, “Same as above.”

For the person who could verify the information, Rocha wrote, Stephanie Anello, who was Antioch Unified School District Superintendent at the time, and her then-district phone number and email address.

Householder Explains Reasons for Approving King’s Use of Title “Educator”

Householder responded on Saturday, Aug. 31 writing, “In regards to your question about having multiple words to describe Mrs. King’s occupation, the simple answer is that Mrs. King is both a business owner and employed by the business. She explains this on her ballot designation worksheet, which you’ve seen.”

“Many people who own a business don’t work as employees of that business,” the City Clerk continued. “To use a generic example, someone owns a restaurant. Their ownership of that restaurant doesn’t mean they are also chefs. However, if they owned the restaurant and worked as a chef there, we would allow “business owner/chef” as their ballot designation. Mrs. King is both a co-owner and employee of Lean In With the Kings, which is the rationale for the multiple words to describe her profession.”

“In regards to your previous question about ‘educator’, as stated on her ballot designation, ‘Education is our focus in how to engage and empower personal, relational, and communal relationships. Programs are structured and require planning and preparation.’ I differentiate ‘teacher’ as someone with a credential and ‘educator’ as someone who educates, instructs, or coaches on a particular topic,” Householder explained.

“The ultimate goal when assessing a ballot designation is that it be true and accurate. Our office meets and extensively discusses this with candidates when navigating what designations are allowable under the Elections Code,” she added.

More Questions for Householder

However, on King’s Ballot Designation Worksheet she only provides the title of “Co-Founder/Owner” which she wrote three times and applies to her first ballot designation. Householder was then asked, what title as an employee for the business does King use for her “Educator” title.

Householder responded on Thursday, August 5th writing, “A part of the work she does at her organization does is educational. Hence, the title “educator.” She explains that under justification 3.” But that doesn’t provide her position as an employee. The city clerk was then asked on Friday, August 6th, what is King’s position as an employee of the company which is “educational” and since she didn’t provide her employee position, how can Householder make that argument.

But the city clerk did not respond prior to publication time.

Questions for King Go Unanswered

Regarding the justifications for the three titles in her approved ballot designation King was asked several questions for clarification in an email early Thursday evening, Sept. 5th. She was first asked why she didn’t share that it’s her business through which King claim to be an educator when she was asked how she’s a teacher and where does she teach that could have been included in the article about her candidacy.

Because her worksheet under Justification for use of 1st PVO only shows that they’re part of her business model, King was asked on what initiatives and programs for clients that she has consulted.

King was also asked, with what companies and organizations does her business outsource as mentioned in her Justification for use of 2nd PVO (“Educator”) and to provide a couple examples.

The District 2 council candidate was then asked if she meant “communial” instead of “communal” under the Justification for use of 3rd PVO (“Consultant”), because the latter word could not be found in online searches. She was also asked how the education portion of their business is conducted, if do they teach your clients from books, manuals, videos, etc., are they given homework which she reviews and/or tests which she grades

She had the justifications for the latter two ballot designation titles reversed on the worksheet.

Regarding Householder’s explanation of why King can use three different titles for the same business, the candidate was reminded that on her Ballot Designation Worksheet, King only provided the title of “Co-Founder/Owner” which she wrote three times and applies to her first ballot designation. King was then asked what title as an employee of the business does she use for her “Educator” title.

Lastly, King was asked, again, if her position with the Oscar Grant Foundation is paid or volunteer.

She did not respond by publication time on Friday, Sept. 6 at 6:00 p.m.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Antioch among 15 cities eligible to participate in ADU Accelerator Program

By Steven Harmon, Policy Analyst/Communications, Office of State Senator Steve Glazer

SACRAMENTO – Senator Steve Glazer, D-Contra Costa, announced a newly created program to encourage the construction of hundreds of Accessory Dwelling Units in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties.

The ADU Accelerator Program, secured in the budget through Senator Glazer’s efforts, offers rebates of up to $15,000 for qualifying ADU plans and projects. This $2.5 million state-funded initiative is intended to facilitate the construction of 350 ADUs among the 15 cities and towns in the East Bay.

“It is no secret the State of California is facing a shortage of available and affordable housing, and no one knows this better than our local cities and towns,” Glazer said. “From my first days in the State Senate, I have been a staunch supporter of cities seeking new and unique ways to spur the production of housing while blending new developments within the fabric of their communities.”

“I’m hoping that cities in my district can show what can be achieved when cities work together with the state on an incentivized program aimed at producing more affordable housing,” Senator Glazer said.

The program, approved in the 2023 budget, will be administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The 15 cities are: Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Dublin, Lafayette, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pittsburg, San Ramon, Walnut Creek in Contra Costa County and Livermore and Pleasanton in Alameda County.

Qualifying cities must have a Certified Housing Element that meets the substantial compliance requirements of Housing and Community Development.

Below is an overview of the new program along with guidelines to apply and receive funds.

Senate District 7 – ADU Accelerator Program | GUIDELINES

Program Overview

Some cities are taking steps to encourage and facilitate the construction of ADUs through the development of permit-ready plans, including architectural design work. Other cities are waiving processing fees to bring down the cost of housing.

This new program will be piloted by Senator Glazer’s District 7, composed of 15 cities in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area. The program will be administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for the purpose of advancing or “accelerating” the production of 350 ADUs through a series of programs.

Program Funding

Section 19.564 of the Budget Act of 2023 provides $2,500,000 to be allocated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for implementation of the ADU Accelerator Program (“Program”) to grant funds to cities for the creation of pre-approved permit-ready accessory dwelling unit plans and an incentive program.

Program Eligibility

• Fifteen (15) cities located in Senate District 7, including: Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Dublin, Lafayette, Livermore, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pittsburg, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek.
• Qualifying cities must have a Certified Housing Element that meets the substantial compliance requirements of Housing and Community Development.

Program Details

1.      Incentive Program. Available Funding: $1,725,000

A.    Low-Income Restricted ADUs

Provide individual rebates of up to $15,000 to property owners who obtain building permits to construct an ADU and receive a certificate of occupancy within 18 months of issuance. Rebates will be provided for units that are deed restricted to low-income households for a minimum of 20 years; based upon the following sliding scale:

• $15,000 for units < 50 square feet
• $10,000 for units between 501-750 square feet
• $5,000 for units between 751-1,000 square feet
• No rebates for units over 1,000 square feet.

B.     Non-restricted ADUs

Provide individual rebates of up to $7,500 to property owners who obtain building permits to construct an ADU and receive a certificate of occupancy within 18 months of issuance. Rebates will be provided for units that are deed restricted to low-income households for a minimum of 20 years. Funds are awarded based upon the following sliding scale:

• $7,500 for units < 50 square feet
• $5,000 for units between 501-750 square feet
• $2,500 for units between 751-1,000 square feet
• No rebates for units over 1,000 square feet.

Example:

• City of Dublin has a population of 72,917 (as of January 1, 2024)
• Per Capita: $1.87
• Eligible for Award of $136,352 ($1.87 per capita x 72,917 population)
• Divided by average of $5,000 per unit (unrestricted)

Potential ADUs Added: 27 ADUs

2.      Permit Ready Prototype ADU Plans. Available Funding: $750,000

Qualified cities receive funding toward preparing prototypical permit-ready ADU plans (“ADU Plans”), including design elevations and construction drawings. Permit-ready plans are intended to streamline the ADU development process and facilitate additional ADU development in the community. Cities may partner with other cities on applications in this category to leverage investment. The maximum grant per city will be $50,000.

Cities may not be reimbursed for permit-ready ADU plans that were prepared prior to the launch of this program. Program funds may be used to modify or update existing permit-ready ADU plans or to create additional permit-ready ADU plans. Cities may also seek compensation from other eligible cities they share plans with.

Application Process

To receive funds, qualified cities must complete and submit an electronic application to the Town of Danville, Fiscal Agent. All funds must be expended as prescribed below and no later than September 30, 2026, after which these funds would be considered unexpended “Excess Funds” subject to re-allocation. 

Incentive Program

An application must include (a) the anticipated number of units proposed to be produced through the program; and (b) amount requested based on the per capita amount identified in the Funding Eligibility section.

Funding will be distributed to cities upon receipt of the application. Any unused funding must be returned to the Town of Danville, Fiscal Agent, at the end of the 18-month period and may be reallocated to cities that meet their targets and have additional need.

Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans

An application must include (a) brief description of the plans to be developed including the number of floor plans and ADU sizes; and (b) requested funding amount. The maximum funding is $50,000 per agency. Cities may partner with other eligible cities on applications in this category to leverage funding investment.

Funding will be distributed to cities upon receipt of the application. Permit-ready plans must be completed and available to prospective permittees within 12 months of grant award and include a city resolution adopting the ADU Plans.

Excess Funds

Any funding that has not been expended pursuant to these program guidelines by September 30, 2026, must be returned to the Fiscal Agent, the Town of Danville. These Excess Funds will be reallocated to other eligible agencies pursuant to the Incentive Program Guidelines. Funds will be re-allocated on a first come, first served basis. In the event of multiple requests, consideration will be given to which city or cities will generate the largest number of affordable units.

Application Deadlines

Applications are accepted via electronic submittal only

Incentive Program: September 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025 (may be extended if additional funds are available to be rolled over from the Permit-Ready program).

Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans: September 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025.

Program Administration

As authorized through the California Budget Act of 2023 and the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the Town of Danville will act as the fiscal agent (“Fiscal Agent”) to receive funding applications and distribute Program funds. The Town of Danville will receive a 1% fee ($25,000) for administering the program.

General program questions can be directed to Planning Division c/o Jessica Lam, Town of Danville at jlam@danville.ca.gov or (925) 314-3337.

Applications and application-related correspondence can be directed to SD7.ADUProgram@danville.ca.gov.

Biannual Reporting

Eligible recipients will be required to submit Biannual Progress Reports which summarize the number of ADUs that have been permitted and finaled for the reporting period as well as cumulatively for the life of the program through September 30, 2027.

Biannual Progress Reports will be filed with the Fiscal Agent at SD7.ADUProgram@danville.ca.gov.

*Applications are accepted via electronic submittal only

Cites “finite funding”; would have qualified some for up to $150,000 or 20% down payment; signs 5 other bills

By Allen D. Payton

In a message to the California State Assembly on Thursday, Sept. 6, Governor Gavin Newsom explained his veto of AB1840, Home Purchase Assistance Program: eligibility by Assemblymember Dr. Joaquin Arambula (D-Fresno) that it’s due to limited funds. He wrote:

“To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1840 without my signature.

This bill seeks to prohibit the disqualification of applicants from one of California Housing Finance Agency’s (CalHFA) home purchase assistance programs based solely on their immigration status.

Given the finite funding available for CalHFA programs, expanding program eligibility must be carefully considered within the broader context of the annual state budget to ensure we manage our resources effectively.

For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill.”

The bill would have allowed some illegal immigrants in California to qualify for the California Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loan program, which would have been renamed under the bill to the Home Purchase Assistance Program, and receive up to $150,000 for a 20% downpayment to purchase their first home.

Newsom also announced on Thursday the bills he signed into law:

AB 1170 by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia (D-Anaheim) – Political Reform Act of 1974: filing requirements.

AB 1770 by the Committee on Emergency Management – Emergency services: Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission: seismic mitigation and earthquake early warning technology.

AB 2094 by Assemblymember Heath Flora (R-Modesto) – Alcoholic beverage control: public community college stadiums: City of Bakersfield.

AB 2436 by Assemblymember Juan Alanis (R-Modesto) – Cattle: inspections: fees.

AB 2721 by the Committee on Agriculture – Food and agriculture: omnibus bill.

For full text of the bills, visit: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.

Police seek unknown suspect

By Lt. Desmond Bittner, #3252, Antioch Police Investigations Bureau

As previously reported, on Monday, September 2, 2024, at approximately 9:35 p.m., Antioch police officers responded to the 2100 block of Peppertree Way near Sycamore Drive for reports of shots fired in the area. When officers arrived on the scene, they found a 20-year-old male victim who had been shot at least once. Antioch police officers provided aid to the victim who was transported to a local hospital.

On Thursday, September 5th the victim succumbed to his injuries at a local hospital. The victim has been identified as Elijah Scales (20) from Antioch. This is an active investigation, and no further information will be released at this time.

According to his Facebook page, Scales was from Pittsburg and attended Antioch High School. Following the shooting on Monday, family members posted on Facebook messages, a 2019 photo of him (above) and a video montage of photos of Scales.

Any tips or other information can be directed to Antioch Police Detective Duffy at (925) 779-6884 or by email aduffy@antiochca.gov.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

After Supervisors made the estimated 10,000 residents in county eligible 

“While Medi-Cal…includes undocumented residents, some…earn too much money to qualify. And they are not eligible for CoveredCA because they’re undocumented.” 

By Contra Costa Health

Contra Costa Health is now offering affordable health care coverage to uninsured county residents who don’t qualify for Medi-Cal or CoveredCA. 

Potentially eligible residents can now call a financial counselor at 1-800-771-4270 to ask about enrolling in Basic Health Care, which offers coverage for primary care, medications, X-rays and more. 

While Medi-Cal has expanded to include undocumented residents, some of those residents earn too much money to qualify. And they are not eligible for CoveredCA because they’re undocumented. 

“We’re still seeing some people in our community fall through the cracks, unable to get health insurance,” said Gilbert Salinas, chief equity officer for Contra Costa Health (CCH). “Basic Health Care will help fill that gap and give people access to medical care.”

Earlier this year, the Board of Supervisors made undocumented residents eligible for Basic Health Care. It’s estimated that more than 10,000 undocumented residents in Contra Costa are eligible for Basic Health Care. 

To qualify for Basic Health Care, residents must have incomes below 300% of the federal poverty level. People enrolled in Basic Health Care will pay a sliding-scale quarterly premium depending on their income up to $20 a month. Enrollment in this program will not be considered as part of a public charge test for immigrants.  

Basic Health Care enrollees will be able to access care at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and the County’s outpatient health centers.  

“By improving access to primary medical services through Basic Health Care, we aim to reduce unnecessary visits to local hospital emergency departments,” Salinas said. 

For more information, visit our Basic Health Care webpage.  

By Antioch Police Department

Collaboration with our community members led to the arrest of a burglary suspect. On Friday, August 30, 2024, officers Tanguma and Whitson were called to Romi’s Liquor & Food in the 400 block of East 18th Street for a report of the alarm going off.

When they arrived, they found that the front door was smashed, and bottles of alcohol were stolen. The officers reviewed the surveillance video with the store owner who recognized the suspect. Officers identified two suspects and swiftly arrested one, who was charged with burglary.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

20-year-old shooting victim in critical condition at hospital, investigation ongoing

By Lt. Desmond Bittner, #3252, Antioch Police Investigations Bureau

On Monday, September 2, 2024, at approximately 9:35 p.m., Antioch police officers responded to the 2100 block of Peppertree Way near Sycamore Drive for reports of shots fired in the area. When officers arrived on the scene, they found a 20-year-old male victim who had been shot at least once. Antioch police officers provided aid to the victim who was transported to a local hospital. The victim is currently listed in critical condition.

The Antioch Police Department’s Investigations Bureau, consisting of Crime Scene Investigators and detectives with the Violent Crimes Unit responded to take over the investigation. This is an active investigation, and no further information will be released at this time.

Any tips or other information can be directed to Antioch Police Detective Duffy at (925) 779-6884 or by email aduffy@antiochca.gov.

Glazer votes to table the amendment without debate, Skinner votes to abstain

By Allen D. Payton

An effort by the Republicans in the California State Senate to end the state income tax on tips was blocked by Democrats during final session voting, last Thursday, August 29, 2024. That’s in spite of the fact that their party’s nominee for president, Vice President Kamala Harris, announced her support for the proposal just last month, following former President Trump’s previous announcement proposing the idea during the campaign.

All nine Republican state senators supported the amendment, while almost all the state’s Democratic senators, including State Sen. Steve Glazer, except for Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire and State Sen. Nancy Skinner, voted in opposition. McGuire and Skinner, who represents portions of Western Contra Costa County, voted to abstain. Glazer currently represents the rest and most of Contra Costa County, including Antioch. The motion to table the amendment without debate passed 29-9-2.

A press release about the effort issued that day reads, “Today, California Senate Republicans advanced amendments to protect hospitality and service industry employees with a state tax exemption on tips. Legislative Democrats refused to consider the issue and summarily killed the proposal without discussion or debate. Click HERE to watch Senator Ochoa Bogh’s floor remarks and click HERE to view/download the roll call vote on the amendments.”

“The proposal, which was aimed at addressing the unsustainable tax burden placed on workers who rely heavily on tips, would have exempted those tips from state income taxes and allowed hospitality and service industry employees to take home more of their earnings,” the press release continued. “Proponents of the policy point to not only relief for taxpayers as a benefit but also increased spending that would result from those tax breaks and serve as an economic driver to lift all sectors of the economy.”

“The negligence involved in a refusal to even debate a policy issue of this magnitude cannot be overstated,” said state Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones. “The push to eliminate the federal tip tax has made its way to the campaign stage for both major party’s this year, yet California Democrat politicians don’t believe it be even worthy to discuss at the state level for residents here.”