2020/21 Measure W Sales Tax expenditures. Source: Antioch Sales Tax Citizens Oversight Committee 8th Annual Report

May be lower, now with no additional officers in this or next years’ budgets, and department down to as low as 88 active sworn; will be presented during council meeting Tuesday night; provides incorrect information as to intent of measure

By Allen D. Payton

At the beginning of Tuesday night’s Antioch City Council meeting, the Sales Tax Citizen’s Oversight Committee for Measures C and W will present their 8th Annual Report on the revenue and expenditures of the current 1% sales tax approved by the voters in November 2018. The report is for the city’s Fiscal Year 2020/21 which ended last June 30. Measure W Sales Tax COC 8th Annual Report ACC032222

The report shows a total of $15,624,254 was spent on police for 80.18% of the funds from Measure W. However, since no funding for additional officers was included in this or next year’s budgets, that figure could now be less.

What is written on the Committee Observation page of the report is incomplete. It reads, “The intent of Measure W extends Measure C, voter-approved sales tax at the one-cent rate to increase investment in code enforcement, clean up blight, road repairs, support youth and senior services, and attract new business and jobs to Antioch” and cites the source for their information as the Measure W page on the city’s website – www.antiochca.gov/community/measure-w-voter-information/.

But that fails to mention the intent was, first “Continuing to maintain 911 police response and restore the number of police officers patrolling City streets” as written on that webpage. Further, it ignores the first priority is “to provide for public safety and 911 service” written in the resolution, for which a link is provided on that page, and adopted by the city council, that was necessary to place the measure on the ballot. Finally, that comment also fails to mention the ballot language provided in the documents labeled “Ordinance” on that page, which reads, “To maintain Antioch’s fiscal stability, police patrols, 911 response…”

The presentation slide does mention police by including, “80.18% of Measure W funds are allocated to Antioch Police Department.”

While the one slide that includes the Staff Report FY 21 shows no net gain or less of sworn officers for the police department, the current active staffing is down to 88 sworn officers as of two weeks ago. Mayor Lamar Thorpe continues to ignore calls from three other council members to place the hiring of additional sworn police officers on a council agenda.

The report also shows most of the remaining $3.9 million in Measure W funds were spent on Code Enforcement at $1,587,420 and Recreation at $1,547,869.

The regular council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall located at 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown. It can also be viewed live on Comcast channel 24, AT&T U-verse channel 99, or live stream at City Council Meeting LIVE – City of Antioch, California (antiochca.gov).  (See the complete meeting agenda.)

The Red Caboose is still standing but fire damaged the back side of the building including the office and kitchen on Monday, March 21, 2022. Photos: Allen D. Payton (left & all other except for, right) The Red Caboose

Initial investigation shows it started outside; an Antioch landmark since the late 1960’s

The fire damaged the ceiling and roof over the bar area.

By Allen D. Payton

An early morning fire burned much of the kitchen, office, and other parts of The Red Caboose restaurant in Antioch causing it to close down, Monday. A post on the restaurant’s Facebook page Monday morning by Judy Pence, who with her husband own the restaurant, but not the building alerted the public to the tragedy. The restaurant is located at the end of Fulton Shipyard Road next to the old Antioch boat launch, Rodger’s Point and the former Tommy’s Harbor.

“Well, I don’t even know what to say. We got the call at 4:00 am. The Red Caboose Restaurant is gone. Needless to say…. We will be closed until further notice,” she wrote.

According to ConFire PIO Steve Hill, it was a single alarm fire. ConFire was called at 3:26 AM. “We got on scene pretty quickly,” he said. “It was in the kitchen area. It’s under investigation. The preliminary investigation says it does appear the fire started on the exterior. When we got there the kitchen was fully engulfed in flames.” Hill said he will provide more details later once the investigation is concluded.

Damage to the office.

“The fire started outside and went through the wall in the office off the parking lot,” John Pence stated.  “It destroyed the kitchen. But unlike a lot of restaurant fires it didn’t start in the kitchen.”

Asked if most of the building is still standing, he said, “yes”.

“The deep fryer, the charbroiler, the flat top and the stove are still fine. So, it wasn’t a kitchen fire,” he pointed out during a tour of the damage to the restaurant. “The fire appeared to have started behind the office and then run up along the eaves to the kitchen.”

Asked if they’re going to rebuild, Pence said they own the restaurant but not the building. The building is owned by the Boccio family in Antioch.

Restaurant owner John Pence points out there was no damage to some of the kitchen equipment.

When asked if she plans to rebuild, building owner Phyllis Boccio said, “I haven’t even thought about it. My daughter has been down there for about an hour, and I’ll know more when she gets back.”

Both Boccio’s daughter Nancie Boccio and son, Dr. Jim Boccio, Jr. were on scene of the restaurant, Monday morning.

Asked how long the restaurant had been open, Jim said their parents bought the building in the late 1960’s. It had previously been a bar, he shared.

They said their dad, Jim Boccio, Sr. who passed away in 2020, brought the caboose up from Southern California and added it onto the then-existing building.

3/22/22 UPDATE: In a post on The Red Caboose Facebook page, Tuesday morning, restaurant owners John and Judy Pence shared the following message:

“Good Morning. John and I want to thank everyone in this amazing community for all the kind (mostly ) words, support and encouragement. The Red Caboose is so much more than us. It is community, friendship, a place to come and get away, be you, hang out, eat good food, and mostly, have fun. We have strived over the last few years to make it a welcoming and homey place. Our staff is the best and we couldn’t have done it without them. To say they are heart broken is an understatement. There have been suggestions to start a go-fund me to help rebuild, but honestly it is too early to know what is going to happen. There is still much to be done with the insurance and a lot will depend on what the landlord decides to do. Please bear with us as we sift through what’s left, deal with the insurance and just try to get a grasp on things.

Dinner in Pleasant Hill with Ukrainian Consul General in San Francisco Tuesday, March 22

The Contra Costa Republican Party is hosting a dinner with the Ukrainian Consul General in San Francisco, Dmytro Kushneruk, next Tuesday, March 22 and will be donating 100% of the profits to buy body armor for those fighting in Ukraine.

Within 48 hours of announcing the dinner, the Contra Costa Republican Party raised nearly $20,000 towards this effort. Tickets and sponsorships can be purchased at www.ContraCostaRepublicanParty/Ukraine.

“Contra Costa Republicans are demonstrating that they are enthusiastic to step up and personally support Ukrainians fighting the Russian invasion,” said Contra Costa Republican Party Chairman, Matt Shupe (@MattShupePR). “We stand in solidarity with both our neighbors that previously fled the horrors of socialism in Eastern Europe and the Ukrainians who stand and fight against tyranny now.”

The Contra Costa Republican Party partnered with the Ukrainian American Coordinating Council to host the dinner event. UACC has obtained the permits required to transport the body armor to Ukraine.
“The battleground is in Ukraine, but the battle is for western civilization and freedom,” said UACC Board Member, Lydia Stoykovych. “Ukrainians are fighting for a better future, not just for Ukraine, but for the world, where individualism, democracy, peace, and innovation reign. All Americans need to understand that Putin’s aggressive ambition extends far beyond Ukraine.”

The dinner will also feature Ukrainian immigrant turned Republican candidate for California’s 10th Congressional District, Oleksii Chuiko. It will be in Pleasant Hill on Tuesday, March 22nd and will start at 6 p.m.

The Contra Costa Republican Party hosts a monthly fundraising dinner called the Chairman’s Circle Dinner Series. Dinners include a hosted bar, three course, filet mignon dinner, and very prominent speakers.

Occurred on 680 in Concord; apologizes in video, claims to have only had one drink; won’t answer questions; Ogorchock says Thorpe not “being a good example to our youth”

By Allen D. Payton

Embattled Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe, who is facing a possible recall, was arrested for driving under the influence at 1:27 AM this morning, Saturday, March 19, according to the Arrest Report / Unusual Incident – Press Release issued by CHP Public Information Officer Andrew Barclay. “It happened on 680 in Concord,” Barclay said. (See Arrest Report: Chp288B.THORPE)

The report reads, “On 3/19/22 at 1:15 am, CHP Contra Costa conducted an enforcement stop on a gray Volvo traveling on northbound I-680 near Monument Blvd.  The driver and only occupant of the Volvo was identified as Lamar Thorpe (4/6/1981).  The officers conducted a DUI investigation and Thorpe was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.  Thorpe was cited for violations 23152(a) VC and 23152(b) VC and released from custody at 3:35am.”

“As officers were investigating this incident there was an injury collision being investigated in the same area. These two incidents are completely unrelated.”

Top portion of Thorpe’s Arrest Report / Unusual Incident – Press Release on March 19, 2022. Source: CHP

Barbanica First to Confirm Incident With CHP

Earlier Saturday, in response to reports of Thorpe’s arrest and rumors that he had an underage female passenger with him and that he was in the Martinez Detention Facility, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica contacted the CHP for verification and to determine if he had to step into the role of acting mayor.

“I just spoke with ranking CHP personnel who confirmed that an arrest was made of Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe for DUI who was cite released,” Barbanica informed the Herald. “There was no crash. There was no 17-year-old passenger. It was a standard enforcement stop. CHP will be issuing a press release later.”

Asked when it occurred and where, and what the Blood Alcohol Content was, Barbanica said he did not have that information. Asked for information on any other passenger Barbanica said, “I have no knowledge of any other passengers. But I was told specifically by a CHP administrator that the rumor of a 17-year-old passenger being in the car was incorrect.”

Barbanica later shared, “According to a CHP spokesman, Thorpe was arrested for 23152 (a) Misdemeanor DUI Under the Influence and 23152 (b) Blood Alcohol Content over a .08 and pursuant to their policy was cite released.”

Thorpe Not Booked, But Cited and Released to a “Responsible Party”, Car Towed

Asked if he was allowed to drive home, Barbanica, a retired Pittsburg Police Watch Commander/Lieutenant, said, “CHP usually releases them into someone’s custody.”

Asked if Thorpe was allowed to drive himself home, since he was released two hours after his arrest, CHP’s Barclay said, “We would never allow an impaired individual to drive themself home. They are released to a responsible party to drive the individual home.”

Asked if Thorpe was still with the CHP Officer on the side of the road at the time of his release or from where he was released, where he was booked, if Thorpe was taken to county jail, and if his car was impounded and towed from the scene, Barclay responded, “There was no booking. People we cite and release are not booked into county jail. He was transported to our office in Martinez for the chemical test and was released from there. The vehicle was towed from the scene. To be clear, that is not an impound, but a storage.”

Barbanica then stated that “it was common practice for the CHP to take a DUI suspect to their office or a nearby agency to administer a chemical test, either breath or blood. It was common practice when I was working as a Watch Commander.”

Asked which test, Barclay added Thorpe was administered a breath test.

Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe posted a video on his mayor’s Facebook page on Saturday apologizing for being arrested for DUI. Screenshot

Thorpe Apologizes in Facebook Video, Claims He Had Only One Drink

At about noon, today, Thorpe posted a video on his official mayor’s Facebook page about the arrest. While apparently reading from notes off-camera he said, “Good morning, Antioch. I wanted to come before you, today because I wanted to share some personal news with you. Last night, after having dinner with a friend, I was pulled over by the California Highway Patrol and cited for driving under the influence. For that I take full responsibility. Upon advice of counsel, I am limited in what I can share with you, but I felt it was important to be open and direct with you. Although I never felt inhibited by the drink I had with my dinner, I’m deeply sorry for the lapse in judgement, and I hope that you can forgive me. Being your mayor is one of the greatest honors of life and I am sorry if I have embarrassed you in any way. You have my full commitment that I will grow and learn from this moment and continue to work diligently on behalf of the residents of Antioch. Thank you for listening. Have a wonderful day.”

Most Questions for Thorpe Go Unanswered

The following questions were emailed to Thorpe at 10:32 AM Saturday, prior to the release of the arrest report, Barbanica’s information or the video: “Was it for alcohol or drugs? If it was for drinking what was your blood alcohol level? If for drugs, was it a prescription medication? If not, what was the drug or drugs you consumed? When and where did your arrest occur?

Did you remember telling the CHP Officer who arrested you that you’re the mayor of Antioch?

From and to where were you traveling at that time? Before getting in your car was anyone else with you who saw you inebriated and try to take your keys and prevent you from driving? Did anyone attempt to get you to use Uber or Lyft, instead?

Did you return home or go somewhere else following the arrest? How did you get there?

Will you be self-submitting to a DUI program and/or substance abuse counseling?

Do you have any comments you would like to provide in response? Would you like to make a public apology?”

At 11:42 AM Thorpe was asked about Barbanica calling on him to resign as mayor and if he had any response to it. Thorpe did not respond to either email, or to an attempt to reach him by phone as of 3:00 PM.

Barbanica Calls for Thorpe to Resign

In rspons to Thorpe’s arrest, Barbanica is calling on him to resign as mayor.

“What I feel, at this time is that we have serious business in the City of Antioch to deal with and we don’t need to be distracted by a DUI investigation of the mayor,” the mayor pro tem stated. “I do wish him the very best in dealing with this legal issue and anything else he’s dealing with, and I mean that. My hope is that he will step down and allow the rest of the council to focus on the issues of the city. I feel that he and everybody else has the right to due process. But I do believe he should deal with this issue separate from the city.”

Ogorchock Says Thorpe Not “Being a Good Example to Our Youth”

While not calling for Thorpe’s resignation, District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock said he’s not being a good example for the city’s youth.

“It’s unfortunate that Mayor Lamar Thorpe chose to drink and drive putting himself and others at risk. It shows a lapse in decision making, self-control and leadership,” she said. “He speaks to young people, wants them to follow him and participate in the city’s youth programs. An example is the Mayor’s Apprenticeship Program for youth that he’s introducing during the council meeting on Tuesday.”

“By his actions, I don’t believe Lamar is being a good example for our youth” Ogorchock added.

More Questions for Thorpe About Video Statements

Following review of Thorpe’s video, additional questions were emailed to him at 1:58 PM asking, “Were you really having dinner just prior to 1:27 AM when you were arrested? What time did you get to the restaurant? Did you really only have one drink in all that time that you were there? Is there anything you want to change about what you said in your video? Are there any other comments you want to add?”

He had not responded by publication time at 3:00 p.m.

Please check back later for any answers from Thorpe and any other updates to this report.

Approval by a majority of Antioch City Councilmembers of redistricting Draft Map A – Modified is being challenged by an Antioch resident.

By Allen D. Payton

Following the Antioch City Council finalizing their redistricting process on Friday, March 11, with a majority of members voting to adopt a politically drawn, gerrymandered map of council districts, Antioch resident and business owner Mark Jordan sent a letter to the council members demanding they rescind their decisions and send the process to the Superior Court and threatening a lawsuit if they don’t. (See related article)

Following is a copy of Jordan’s letter:

March 15, 2022

City of Antioch

Mayor and Council Members

200 H Street

Antioch, CA  94509

RE:  NOTICE OF POTENTIAL LITIGATION

Redistricting / Map Selection / City of Antioch

Mayor and Council Members,

This NOTICE will serve to inform you that as a resident and citizen of the City of Antioch I challenge the process you have conducted to select the Redistricting Map for the City of Antioch in 2022.

I challenge Maps selected by the Council commonly known as; Map A Draft and Map A Draft Modified.  I state and claim you are in violation of your Oaths of Office, the California Government Code and the California Elections Code.

DEMAND IS MADE AS FOLLOWS:

1. You AGENDA the Rescission of both selections of Map A Draft and Map A Draft Modified at the next Council meeting not later than March 22, 2022.
2. VOTE to rescind approval of both gerrymandered maps which you have selected, which exist approved by the Council in conflict with each other.
3. You MOVE to deliver the entire process of the selection of the Antioch Redistricting Map to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa notifying the Court that the City of Antioch is unable to complete the process of redistricting in a manner that is not gerrymandered. This DEMAND of delivery to the Superior Court is made pursuant to Elections Code Section 21609.

RATIONALE FOR DEMAND:

1. On January 25, 2022 the Council decided on two final maps (Map B and Map 91) stating to the public that one of the two would be the Final Redistricting Map.
2. On February 8, 2022 the Council rejected both Maps they had decided were the two final Maps and there was no vote to rescind the previous selection of the final maps.
3. On February 22, 2022 the Council returned Map A Draft to consideration without a motion.
4. On February 22, 2022 members of the Council including the Mayor actively modified Map A Draft in a gerrymandered manner to create Map A Draft Modified.
5. On March 8, 2022 the Council selected Map A Draft, a gerrymandered map.
6. On March 11, 2022 the Council selected Map A Draft Modified without a motion to rescind Map A Draft. Map A Draft Modified is a gerrymandered map.

You have moved off the two final maps selected January 25, 2022 without properly voting to reconsider rejected maps.  You have currently approved two conflicting Maps without rescinding a previous action; the selection of Map A Draft on March 8, 2022.

The Council has and remains in violation of Elections Code Section 21601, subsections 1 through 4 inclusive, by selections of both Map A Draft and Map A Draft Modified because neither map meets the requirements of the Elections Code and both are gerrymandered.

If you fail to take the aforementioned DEMANDED ACTIONS I will move to seek immediate judicial relief including but not limited to a stay of your decisions concerning redistricting, a revocation of any Map you have selected along with seeking any attorney’s fees and costs for your violations of the Government Code and Elections Code.  I will further request any other relief the Court may choose to award.

Your immediate attention to this MATTER and DEMAND of action is required.

Sincerely,

Mark Jordan

Cc:  City Attorney, City Clerk

Via:  USPS and email

—————-

Next Tuesday’s council meeting agenda released on Friday, March 18 does not include the action demanded by Jordan.

Contra Costa District Attorney Becton and Sheriff David Livingston. Official county website photos.

Send letter to County Supervisors claiming, “Sheriff’s unwavering support for deputy who killed two people raises serious questions about his commitment to safety and accountability”

Instead of six years in prison for Andrew Hall “official Probation Department report recommended probation.”

“Contra Costa is not San Francisco or Los Angeles” – Sheriff Livingston

By Allen D. Payton

During campaign season, as both are facing re-election, an email was sent by Contra Costa County Sheriff David Livingston to his department staff on Friday, March 4, 2022, criticizing District Attorney Diana Becton and the judge for sentencing of former Deputy Andrew Hall to six years in prison for the shooting death of Laudemer Arboleda in 2018. (See related article)

In response, Becton and three other DA’s in the state who formed the Prosecutors Alliance of California are asking the County Supervisors “to increase external oversight of departmental misconduct” and for an audit of the sheriff’s department’s disciplinary practices. Formed in 2020, the Alliance is made up of four members, including the DA’s of San Francisco and L.A. Counties who are both currently facing possible recalls, and funded by Tides Advocacy, a social justice and welfare organization.

Sheriff Livingston’s email:

“Today is a sad day for the Sheriff’s Office, the community we serve, and law enforcement in general.  This morning superior court judge Terri Mockler sentenced Andrew Hall to six years in state prison. This is an unusually long sentence by any measure especially since the official Probation Department report recommended probation.  Since this is a felony conviction, California law requires that he no longer serve as a peace officer.  We are compelled to give him a reluctant farewell.

During his years of service, he served with honor and distinction.  He handled thousands of calls for service, as many of you have, and was well received by the citizens of our county.   After an extensive internal investigation, he was found to be within departmental policy when he was forced to use deadly force to protect himself and others on that fateful day.  I was proud to support him publicly and privately after the events of November 3, 2018, and I support him today.

For our district attorney to charge a deputy sheriff, or any peace officer, for a crime based on a split-second tactical decision is abhorrent.  It is even more abhorrent for that same district attorney to later repost photos on her reelection campaign social media that show her smiling and proclaiming that she “charged the officer.”

Despite these odd times, please remember I appreciate the work all of you do; I respect your sacrifice and commitment to the community we serve, and most importantly, I have your back.  I may not be able to impact the decisions of other elected officials, or the courts, but I definitely can impact what happens in our organization.  Do your job with honor, follow department policies, and obey the law.  If you do that, I will proudly stand with you – regardless of your job assignment, your rank, or your duties.  Never forget that and never doubt that.

I’m proud to be your Sheriff, and I thank you all.

David Livingston

Sheriff-Coroner”

Prosecutors Alliance Chides Livingston, Asks Supervisors for Oversight, Audit

On Monday, March 14, in a letter to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, the Prosecutors Alliance of California asked for an audit of the disciplinary practices in Sheriff Livingston’s department and to increase external oversight of departmental misconduct. Recent remarks made by Sheriff David Livingston suggest he believes his deputies are above the law, raising serious concerns over the legitimacy of an Internal Affairs investigation into former Deputy Andrew Hall and how the Sheriff is disciplining officers who abuse their authority.

“Sheriff Livingston’s comments are abhorrent and indicate his belief that deputies who kill are above the law,” said Cristine Soto DeBerry, Founder and Executive Director of the Prosecutors Alliance of California. “Police have wide latitude to use force, but when they unnecessarily kill they must be held accountable just like anyone else in our community.  When we do not hold police accountable, people do not trust the legal system to protect them. That makes the job of policing more difficult and dangerous, and it makes it far less likely that crimes will be reported. That, in turn, poses a threat to everyone’s safety.

“District Attorney Diana Becton’s willingness to hold law enforcement accountable is the only check on an agency whose leader would otherwise grant his deputies unbridled power to kill with impunity. Sheriff Livingston took an oath to seek equal justice under the law and his remarks are an affront to that sworn commitment. These are not the words of a law enforcement leader, they’re the words of a man that believes accountability does not extend to police.”

Last week, a judge sentenced Deputy Andrew Hall to state prison after a jury convicted him for the 2018 shooting and killing of Laudemer Arboleda, an unarmed man having a mental health episode. This was not Hall’s only killing – he shot and killed Tyrell Wilson in 2021. Contra Costa County has paid $9.4 million to settle claims regarding former Sheriff’s deputy Andrew Hall. The County agreed to a $4.9 million settlement with Arboleda’s family last October in addition to a $4.5 million settlement with Tryell Wilson’s family.

In response to the verdict, Sheriff Livinston sent a department wide letter saying former Sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Hall served with “honor and distinction,” that Hall “was forced to use deadly force to protect himself that day,” and noted that an internal affairs investigation had cleared Hall. Livingston called DA Becton’s decision to charge former Deputy Hall “abhorrent,” and told his deputies, “I have your back.”

In an email to the Board of Supervisors today, Cristine DeBerry sounded the alarm, noting that, “the fact that [Internal Affairs] cleared former Deputy Hall is concerning.  If Department policy allows Sheriff’s Deputies to use force in contravention of the law, that would set up a situation wherein Deputies are being trained to use force in a manner that conflicts with criminal law. That presents serious issues for law enforcement officers, public safety, and county liability.  Alternatively, if the Sheriff is clearing deputies in cases where their use of force was criminal, that too raises serious questions about the Sheriff’s commitment to public safety and accountability.”

The Board of Supervisors can help restore trust by increasing oversight over the Sheriff’s Department, and by auditing the department’s disciplinary policies. These are critical steps to help the public understand the scope of law enforcement misconduct and to develop policies to increase accountability.

“DA Becton courageously charged Officer Hall with the death of Mr. Arboleda, a jury convicted him, and a judge sentenced him to prison,” said Cristine DeBerry. “Sheriff Livingston should accept the jury’s verdict and look at ways to reduce the use of unnecessary force by his deputies rather than question the prosecutor’s decision to bring charges and defiantly proclaim to ‘have the back’ of officers where a jury has determined the force to be criminal.”

A question was sent Thursday evening to the Alliance’s media contact asking if they had received any response, yet from the Board of Supervisors.

Livingston Responds to Alliance Letter

“The so-called ‘Prosecutors Alliance’ committee is made up of only four of the 58 DAs in the state,” Livingston responded. “Contra Costa is not San Francisco or Los Angeles where two of their far-leftwing founding members serve. Instead of playing politics here, they should do their job and prosecute offenders and start caring about crime victims for once.”

Both Livingston is facing one opponent in the June Primary Election, while Becton is facing two. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, then the top two candidates will face off in the November General Election.

Please check back for any updates to this report.

CHP helicopter. Photo source: APD

Dude, that’s an island!

By Antioch Police Department

Shortly after 8:00 pm, Tuesday, March 15, 2022, Antioch Police Officer Marques and Sergeant Rose attempted to stop a stolen vehicle on Highway 4, but the driver decided to test his luck with our powerful radios and a CHP helicopter.

We passed this chase off to CHP near Willow Pass Road, and our speed demon auto thief decided to continue driving all the way to the City of Alameda. Thanks to amazing work by CHP – specifically the crew of Helicopter 32 (H32) – officers were able to pull back on the ground and wait for the car to stop, at which point they swooped in for the arrest.

We are happy to report there were no crashes or injuries, and a grateful vehicle owner will be getting their car back. APD will be coordinating with CHP to book the driver for a list of charges including felony evading and auto theft.

We are grateful for the assistance provided to us time and again by CHP – Golden Gate Division Air Operations. We would also like to thank CHP officers from CHP – Contra Costa and CHP – Oakland. This is a great example of law enforcement agencies working together, coordinating, and using resources to minimize risk to the public we serve.

Mayor Thorpe attempts to stop Councilwoman Ogorchock from speaking at the end of the council’s special Friday meeting. Source: Screenshot of City of Antioch council meeting video.

Were supposed to first adopt a motion to reconsider map or rescind previous motion

“A motion to adjourn shall be in order at any time, except as follows: (A) When made as an interruption of a member speaking.” – Antioch City Code

By Allen D. Payton

At the end of their special Antioch City Council meeting on redistricting late Friday afternoon, March 11, 2022, while District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock was attempting to speak, Mayor Lamar Thorpe violated city ordinance and Robert’s Rules of Order by allowing a motion to adjourn to be made, seconded and voted on. In addition, both Thorpe violated the state’s Brown Act open meeting law when he allowed District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker to respond to comments by those in attendance who spoke on the redistricting maps item, and she violated it as well, by doing so. That’s according to both the Antioch City Code and former Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen.

While Thorpe wouldn’t allow Ogorchock unlimited time to speak, he did allow her three minutes “like any other member of the public” pointing out that the item on the agenda was Public Comments. Ogorchock began to speak, but Thorpe wouldn’t allow her to continue and instead allowed the illegal motion to occur.

Following Thorpe’s lead in asking for a motion to adjourn, Torres-Walker made the motion and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson seconded it. The motion then passed 3-2 with Ogorchock and Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica voting no. (See related article)

As previously reported, during the discussion on her motion to approve Draft Map A – Modified, Torres-Walker chastised and lectured those in attendance who spoke during public comments for using the terms “ignorance” and “circus” because she claims they are racist toward Black people. She also complained about people being critical of her leadership and that of Thorpe and Wilson, because they happen to be Black.

Antioch City Code Prevents Making Motions to Adjourn to Interrupt a Council Member Speaking

Thorpe and the two councilwomen violated the Antioch City Code by making and voting on the motion to adjourn interrupting Ogorchock while she was speaking. In Section 2-1.106  MOTIONS TO ADJOURN, it reads “A motion to adjourn shall be in order at any time, except as follows: (A) When made as an interruption of a member speaking.”

Former City Clerk Simonsen Says Brown Act, Robert’s Rules of Order Were Violated

Referring to Torres-Walker’s comments, Simonsen was asked if it is council policy and/or rules that council members are not allowed to respond to or engage with members of the public who speak during the meetings. He was also asked, if council members are allowed to speak ad infinitum on a matter not on the agenda or part of a motion during the discussion of that motion.

Simonsen responded, “The Brown Act does not permit council members to respond to speakers during Public Comments (anything not on the agenda). On an agenda item, the council members are to only speak to that agenda item, and it is the mayor who is responsible for getting them back on track. Also, as you know, there are no time limits on a council member speaking once they have been recognized to speak. And once a motion has been made and seconded, council members can speak on the motion or even make a substitute motion.”

Simonsen was also asked if it is also in Robert’s Rules of Order that a motion cannot be made while another council member has the floor.

“When a council member has been recognized to speak, they cannot be interrupted by another council member who wants to make a motion,” he responded. “As City Clerk, the City Attorney deferred to me, as I knew Roberts Rules better than them.”

“Lori could have asked for a ‘Point of Privilege’ and been allowed to speak for as long as she liked,” he added. “It is permitted under Robert’s Rules.”

Similar Questions for City Attorney, Clerk and Council Go Unanswered

The following questions were emailed to City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, City Clerk Ellie Householder and the five council members late Monday afternoon: “Isn’t it in the Brown Act and council policy that council members are not allowed to respond to or engage with members of the public who speak during the meetings? Also, aren’t council members precluded from speak ad infinitum on a matter not on the agenda or as part of a motion during the discussion of that motion? Isn’t it also in Robert’s Rules of Order that no motion can be made while another council member has the floor? Also, once a council member has the floor and been recognized to speak doesn’t the Brown Act allow them to speak for an unlimited amount of time? Finally, who is the parliamentarian for the council, the city attorney or city clerk?”

No on responded as of Wednesday at 1:00 PM.

Additional Questions on Procedure for City Attorney, City Clerk Go Unanswered

Smith and Householder were emailed questions early Saturday evening asking if the council violated Robert’s Rules of Order during their special meeting on Friday since no motion for reconsideration was made and vote taken prior to the motion to adopt a different map than was already adopted at Tuesday night’s meeting? Isn’t that required for a member of the majority in the previous vote? If so, does the council need to hold another meeting for a final, final vote on a final redistricting map? If not, why not?”

Additional attempts to reach Smith and Householder by phone Tuesday morning were also unsuccessful and no responses were received from them as of Wednesday at 1:00 PM.

Simonsen Says Council Violated Rules by Not First Adopting Motion for Reconsideration

The same additional questions were sent to Simonsen early Monday evening. He responded Tuesday morning with, “A motion for reconsideration actually needs to be made the night that the motion passed. The only other way possible is to put on the special meeting agenda two items: The first would be to rescind the previous resolution, and the second would be a new resolution with what was originally wanted by Walker. The City Attorney should have known this.”

“Since Robert’s Rules are in the Municipal Code by Ordinance, it has to be followed,” Simonsen added.

Questions for First Amendment Coalition

Similar questions were asked Tuesday morning of the First Amendment Coalition (FAC), which is, according to their website “an award-winning nonprofit dedicated to advancing free speech, open government and public participation in civic affairs.”

Monica Price, Legal Fellow with FAC responded Wednesday morning with the following:

Brown Act Only Allows Council Members to Briefly Respond to Members of the Public Who Speak During Meetings

Under Government Code section 54954.2(a)(3), members of a legislative body or staff can briefly respond to statements or questions by members of the public attending the meeting. In addition, they can: (1) Ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make a brief report on their own activities; (2) refer an issue to staff for factual information; (3) request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter; or (4) take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.

In general, a legislative body cannot take action on any item that is not on the agenda for a meeting under Government Code section 54954.2(a)(3). There are exceptions for brief responses to questions, emergencies, and continued items. While I was unable to find a provision in the Brown Act that prohibits council members from speaking about an item not on the agenda, their internal rules for decorum might. (See Simonsen’s response above).

Not Aware if Brown Act Allows Council Members to Speak for an Unlimited Amount of Time

The Brown Act is intended to provide public access to meetings of California local government agencies.  The goal is public access, not necessarily setting rules for how members of public bodies interact with each other.  I’m not aware of any provision in the Brown Act that governs council members speaking and for how long.  This would likely be in the Antioch City Code or the Council’s internal rules. (See Simonsen’s response, above).

Not Sure Who is the Parliamentarian for the Council, City Attorney or City Clerk

I wasn’t able to determine who the parliamentarian is based on the Antioch City Code.  If the City Clerk is sitting at the meetings moving things along, I suspect that they are the “Parliamentarian.”  The City Attorney is there to advise the board on substantive legal issues (court cases, statutes and ordinances) related to the meeting and to ensure that they are complying with the Brown Act at public meetings, so I do not think that they would be the “Parliamentarian” as the City Attorney has a different purpose.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.