Member of mayor’s Transition Advisory Team

Decision reached during closed session but not reported out

“If appointed, Johnson will become the first African-American City Manager in the history of the city of Antioch.” – Mayor Lamar Thorpe

By Allen Payton

The Antioch City Council will vote on appointing resident Cornelius “Con” Johnson, a retired San Francisco Police lieutenant, as interim city manager, Tuesday night. Current City Manager Ron Bernal is retiring at the end of the year. The council reached the decision to hire Johnson during their special closed session meeting, last Tuesday morning. But following that meeting, City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith said “no reportable action was taken.”  (See related article)

Johnson is a member of Mayor Lamar Thorpe’s Transition Advisory Team, assigned to work as co-chair of police reform with City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith. (See related article)

Johnson was also in attendance during Thorpe’s most recent press conference with Interim Police Chief Tony Morefield on Oct. 21, 2021 about the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Public Safety Partnership  with the Antioch Police Department. (See related article)

Johnson earned a Master of Public Administration and Bachelor of Public Administration from the University of San Francisco. He also possesses a Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) Management Certificate. Johnson’s Linkedin account only shows he is a “Law Enforcement Instructor”.

The staff report on the agenda item offers the following information about his background:

“Mr. Johnson has extensive managerial experience. He is a former San Francisco Police Captain. Some of his career accomplishments include:

• Collaborating with various departments in creating the first African American Community Police Relations Oversight Board, San Francisco Police Department
• Developing and implementing Cultural Awareness, Cultural Competency and Racial Bias in police training for staff.
• Providing monthly updates to the Board of Supervisors, and Police Commission relating to San Francisco Police Department community-policing strategies and efforts.
• Collaborating with the Department of Health, Department of Youth Services and Juvenile Hall Center developing, planning, administering, overseeing the San Francisco Police Department city-wide Violence Intervention Program with a budget of $20 million and a staff of 60 mid managers and supervisor.
• Collaborating with criminologists to develop, implement, and manage the first of its kind gun violence reduction initiative ‘Operation Cease Fire’.”

Thorpe’s Comments

In a Friday afternoon post on his official Facebook page, Thorpe offered his comments about Johnson’s background and expected appointment, providing different information than what is in the city staff report: “Today, the City of Antioch has announced that Cornelius Johnson has been nominated to serve as Interim City Manager.

Having 17 years of managerial experience with the City and County of San Francisco, most recently as a captain in the San Francisco Police Department’s Field Operations Bureau, Johnson managed a $300 million budget and oversaw 600 staff members.

Having risen up the ranks within the San Francisco Police Department, Johnson was the architect of San Francisco’s community policing efforts having established San Francisco’s Director of Community Policing position within the police department. Throughout his career, Johnson has devoted his career to establishing strong bonds between his agencies and the residents he has served.

The City Council will vote on Johnson’s contract at their Tuesday, November 9th meeting. If appointed, Johnson will become the first African-American City Manager in the history of the city of Antioch.”

Question About Johnson’s Rank

However, according to the SF Police Department, Johnson retired as a Lieutenant III in 2016. A San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System report dated August 1, 20216 reads, “Johnson, Cornelius H 07/01/2016 Police Lieutenant III POLICE DEPARTMENT”.  He did serve as Acting Captain in 2015 according to a SFGate news report. The position of lieutenant is not part of the SFPD command staff, which includes the positions of captain and above.

According to a 2002 IndyBay.org news report, Johnson served as a member of the African-American Community Relations Board, in the role of the SFPD’s police liaison. A 2011 video shows him talking tough with high school students as part of a Scared Stiff presentation, warning them about teen pregnancy. He said, “I’ll tell my daughter straight to her face, ‘romance without any fire dance is a nuisance. Make sure this cat’s got a job’. You’re saying the State of California is going to be your baby’s daddy? You’re insane.”

Multiple attempts to reach Johnson for comment Friday evening were unsuccessful prior to publication time Saturday morning. He was also asked if he’d ever been promoted to captain.

Questions for City Attorney, Thorpe and Council Members

Questions were emailed after business hours on Friday asking about this past Tuesday’s special closed session council meeting: “If no action was taken during the closed session on Tuesday, in which the city council met with more than one candidate for interim city manager, how was it decided that Con Johnson would be the finalist for your vote during next Tuesday’s meeting? Did you, as mayor, make the choice and place his name on the agenda, Lamar? Or was it a ‘head nod’, consensus-type thing without a formal vote that occurred during closed session? Because if so, isn’t that an action that should have been reported since a consensus was reached among council members of the candidate to be voted on?”

Additional questions were asked about the items regarding the matter on next Tuesday’s meeting agenda: “If the vote is going to occur in public, what will be occurring during the closed session item “2) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT – TITLE: INTERIM CITY MANAGER. This closed session is authorized pursuant to Government Code section 54957”? The staff report reads “the cost of the Interim City Manager position will be $xxx,xxx of this amount, $xxx,xxx will be the cost to the General Fund.” How much will he be paid? Or is that one of the things that will be negotiated in closed session in item 3)?

They and Johnson were both asked for a copy of his resume to provide more information than what is in the staff report.

11/6/21 UPDATE:  An email was sent to Thorpe, Saturday morning Nov. 6, asking about the discrepancy in the information between what was in the staff report and what he posted on his Facebook page. “Which is correct? Or are they both correct and the staff report failed to include the additional information you provided?” he was asked. Thorpe responded simply, “both are correct.”

Ogorchock: Decision Reached in Closed Session

“The mayor did not make the choice,” Ogorchock said when reached for comment.

“We discussed the candidates and there was a decision made,” she added about the closed session meeting. “I don’t know why the city attorney said there was no action.”

Barbanica Wants To Hear From Public

“I’m receiving comments from the public about the appointment,” Barbanica said. “I look forward to receiving more comments before the vote Tuesday night. If people want to reach out to me that would be great. I’m going to do what is best for the city. But I really want public input.”

No responses were received from any of the others as of publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

“She brought us all together, many of us strangers just one month ago, to form a united effort to demand better leadership for our students.  We are not frightened, divided, or ‘old Antioch.’”

For the past 18-months, as America dealt with the impact of COVID-19 which impacted every decision we made from homelife to work to traveling and education to shutdowns, often what went unchecked by the news stations was what was going on with decisions and actions of our local elected officials.

As COVID19 gripped America, this deadly and divisive pandemic provided a cover for an arguably more insidious and detrimental “virus” raging unchecked; political activists with inflated egos and grandiose ideas of their own importance and impact. Antioch has not escaped unscathed in this political arena.

Antioch Unified School Board (AUSD) President Ellie Householder stated her “Progressive ideas frighten people” and that is why citizens began the arduous effort to recall her.  On the surface this is a powerful and persuasive argument, implying that she is working hard for the students of AUSD and recall proponents are unwilling to accept her ideas.

Is this really the case?

Ms. Householder was voted in as president by her fellow trustees in December of 2020.  Since taking on this role she has presided over 24 meetings of the Board of Education, including 7 special meetings.

In these meetings there have been 57 agenda items under the category Items for Information/Discussion/Action by Board. Of these 57 items, 26 of them were brought forward by Ms. Householder.

• District-wide Use of Force Policies and Procedures (Householder) 09/02/2021 & 10/27/2021
• Policy Regarding Law Enforcement Interaction with Students (Householder) 10/27/2021
• Bullying Prevention Policy (Householder) 10/27/2021
• Agenda Setting/Organization (Householder) 01/27/2021 & 10/27/2021
• Public Communication Policy (Householder) 9/8/2021
• Early Education Options (Householder) 9/8/2021
• Review of Inter- and Intra-District Transfer Board Policies (Householder) 9/8/2021
• Board of Education Notification Policies and Procedures (Householder) 9/8/2021
• Data Supports (Householder) 02/24/2021 & 8/25/2021
• Bay Area Community Resources (BACR) Presentation (Householder) 8/11/2021
• Graduation Attire (Householder) 6/23/2021
• Out and About” Report (Householder) 6/9/2021
• Cleaner Contra Costa Challenge (Householder) 04/28/2021 & 5/12/2021
• Special Board Recognitions (Householder) 5/12/2021
• Bicycle Garden Presentation to the Board (Householder) 5/12/2021
• District-wide Mission Statement(s) (Householder) 4/28/2021
• District Logo (Householder) 4/28/2021
• Manhood Development Program Updates (Householder) 3/10/2021
• Change Order Reports Provided by Staff to the Board (Householder) 3/10/2021
• School Reopening (Householder) 3/10/2021
• School Safety (Householder) 2/24/2021
• Highlighting Resolutions for the Month (Householder) 2/24/2021
• Single Board Email Address (Householder) 12/16/2020 & 1/13/2021
• Goldman School of Public Policy Graduate Student Research Proposal (Householder) 12/16/2020 & 1/13/2021
• Board Meeting Protocols (Householder) 1/13/2021

Of the items presented, which progressive ideas frighten us as Ms. Householder claims? Furthermore, of these items, which actually have a direct impact on improving student achievement? I can see none. She focuses on test scores as she belittles the district. I can see no agenda item she brought forward that would improve test scores.

Meanwhile, other trustees have highlighted the digital divide, pushed for cultural inclusion, requested ROTC and JROTC programs, and sought out grant writing options. There are countless other examples.

What does Householder propose? She has three times pushed for a single board email address, twice discussed the Cleaner Contra Costa Challenge, discussed the city’s bicycle garden initiative, focused on old data, and a variety of other items that have no impact on our students.

We aren’t frightened by her progressive ideas; we are terrified by her lack of discernible action. She has provided a lot of words and media interviews but, has provided the district little to no substance with actual action.

It is interesting that for a sound bite in a recent KPIX interview, she calls herself the “most hated person in America” but fails to see we do not hate her, we dislike her leadership style which by her own admittance is “heavy handed”. Most importantly, her heavy-handed leadership has failed to focus on the students while instead attacking school leadership, employees and even parents.

Many of us who support the recall effort initially supported her for election because of how she was going to change the district. Seeing her in action, now we just want a trustee with a focus on the students and our children – not a personal vendetta.

During these same 24 meetings, the discussion to evaluate/fire the superintendent took place on six separate occasions, including twice under the guise of an emergency Special Board Meeting.  Evaluating the superintendent was seemingly important to Ms. Householder, but she failed to complete one of the primary duties of the president; the coordination and completion of the formal evaluation of the superintendent, due annually on June 30th.

Instead, her laser focus to discredit and fire the superintendent has wasted the time of the other trustees and staff, taken resources away from the students, and illustrated that the priority of her tenure as a board member and president is not focused on our students.

In that KPIX 5 interview she claims her reckless and biased behavior isn’t “dividing anybody” and the “folks behind this recall effort represent old Antioch.”  This very statement is divisive and creates an US v THEM narrative that is completely false.

There is no old or new, there is just Antioch. She also fails to remember that AUSD also encompasses part of the city of Oakley and City of Pittsburg.

The recall proponents represent all areas of AUSD and the diversity of our district.  We are grandparents, parents, recent graduates, teachers, staff, coaches, and administrators.  Our age range spans many decades from teenagers to those in their 90’s. We are members of all three AUSD unions, across all schools and cities within AUSD boundaries. We represent AUSD.

In the interview, Ms. Householder got one thing correct.  She stated, “I believe that I’m actually bringing people together” and this is true.

She brought us all together, many of us strangers just one month ago, to form a united effort to demand better leadership for our students.  We are not frightened, divided, or “old Antioch.”

#WeAreAUSD and we hope to see you at a signing location this weekend or in the near future.

Website: https://recallelliehouseholder.com/

Facebook: Recall Ellie Householder

Twitter: RecallEllieHH

Instagram: recall_elliehouseholder

Lindsey Amezcua

Community member, AUSD parent, Recall proponent, and advocate for ALL children.

 

Thorpe and Householder are political allies; what took the county two days to do for her recall from the Antioch School Board took 12 days for her to accomplish with his, twice

“I think she’s intentionally dragging her feet.” – Recall proponent Kathy Cabrera

By Allen Payton

Proponents of the recall of Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe are accusing his political ally, City Clerk Ellie Householder of not following the rules for the process in her handling of the paperwork. She is also facing recall from her position on the Antioch School Board. (See related articles here and here)

In emails sent Friday, Nov. 5, 2021, former Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen, one of 20 proponents and two people handling the paperwork for the effort, wrote to Deputy City Clerk Christina Garcia, “Once again, the Elections Official, Elizabeth Householder, has refused to provide her ‘findings’ letter to the revised Recall Petition submitted on October 25th to be made available at the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall.” Garcia responded that they didn’t have a copy of the letter to the recall proponents in the clerk’s office, included Simonsen’s original email and copied Householder.

He also wrote to City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, “the actions by City Clerk Householder are not in compliance with the Elections Code regarding the Recall process.” On the first email he copied Smith, City Manager Ron Bernal and Administrative Services Director Nickie Mastay, who is the minutes clerk for the city council and works with Householder, and the latter two on his second.

Simonsen’s complaint was that for the second time, Householder sent the finalized paperwork by certified mail instead of providing it to him and Kathy Cabrera, who served Thorpe with the recall notice, on the day it was due. That was yesterday for the organizers’ revised paperwork, which they had to submit because Householder claimed there were mistakes in the initial paperwork they submitted.

Simonsen’s other complaint was Householder took the full 10 days legally allowed to process the same paperwork as the county handled for her recall in just two days.

“The revised Recall Petition on Mayor Thorpe that was submitted on October 25th was identical to the Recall Petition that the County Elections Office approved, in format, font and layout,” he wrote.

Questions for Householder

The following questions were asked of Householder via email Friday afternoon: “Are you required to send the paperwork to the recall proponents by certified mail? If not, why did you? He’s claiming you don’t and it doesn’t appear that you are. In the state’s Recall Procedures Guide it reads: ‘The elections official must, within ten days of receiving the copies of the petition, determine whether the proposed form and wording of the petition meet the necessary requirements and notify proponents in writing of the findings.’

Why didn’t you just provide a written copy for them at the City Clerk’s office for them to have and read on the 10th day? Did you keep a copy for them and the public in the City Clerk’s office at city hall by the 10th day, which was yesterday for their revised paperwork? They’re claiming you didn’t. If so, why not?

Why did it take you the full 10 days both times to handle their paperwork when the county clerk’s office handled your recall paperwork in two days? Was it done sooner, and you just held it until the legal limit?”

Additional attempts to reach Householder were also unsuccessful prior to publication time.

Simonsen’s & Garcia’s Emails

From: Arne Simonsen

Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 3:44 AM

To: Garcia, Christina

Cc: Mastay, Nickie; Smith, Thomas Lloyd; Bernal, Ron

Subject: Elections Official Response to revised Recall Petition

Christina Garcia, CMC

Once again, the Elections Official, Elizabeth Householder, has refused to provide her “findings” letter to the revised Recall Petition submitted on October 25th to be made available at the City Clerks Office at City Hall.

Instead, she has sent it by Certified Mail which did not use the Neopost in the City Hall Mailroom.

Did she give a copy of her “findings” to City Clerks Office, since this is an official document? If so, please scan it and email to the primary proponents, Kathy Cabrera and myself.

Kathy Cabrera has submitted several emails to the Elections Official/City Clerk requesting the “findings” to be sent to her by email and that request has not been honored.

The Elections Code only requires the “findings” to be in written form, which can be made available at the City Clerks Office, sent by email as an attachment, and/or mailed.

Nowhere in the Elections Code does it require it to be sent only by Certified Mail.

Respectfully,

Arne Simonsen, MMC

Garcia Responds

From: Garcia, Christina

To: Arne Simonsen; Householder, Ellie

Cc: Mastay, Nickie; Smith, Thomas Lloyd; Bernal, Ron

Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021, 04:17:34 PM GMT

Subject: RE: Elections Official Response to revised Recall Petition

Good morning Arne,

As you are aware, Ellie Householder is the City Clerk/Elections Official for the City of Antioch.  We do not have a copy of the document in question.  I am referring your email to her for a response.

Thank you.  Be safe.

Christina Garcia, CMC

Deputy City Clerk | City Clerk Department

Simonsen’s Second Email

From: Arne Simonsen

Fri 11/5/2021 1:59 PM

To:  Thomas Lloyd Smith; Bernal Ron

Cc: Nickie Mastay

Thomas,

As one of only 1,330 Master Municipal Clerks in the world, the actions by City Clerk Householder are not in compliance with the Elections Code regarding the Recall process.

When the first Recall Petition was submitted to the City Clerks [sic] Office, Householder had 10 days to provide in writing the findings as to whether the Recall Petition met the requirements of the Elections Code. She provided a response on the 10th day, but refused to make it available on the 10th day. Instead, she sent it by Certified Mail which meant that the primary proponent did not receive the response until the 12th day !!

When the revised Recall Petition was submitted to the City Clerks Office on October 25th, Householder again had 10 days to provide a finding that either additional corrections were required or that the Recall Petition met the requirements and was approved for circulation. The 10th day was November 4th.

Again Householder refused to provide the findings on the 10th day; and instead once again sent it by Certified Mail. This means that once again the lead proponent will not received the findings until after the 10th day.

There is no requirement in the Elections Code that the findings must be sent by Certified Mail or First Class Mail. The only requirement is that it be in writing.

When I was City Clerk, I handled two Recall attempts. In both cases, I provided the findings to the proponent with two days.

The Recall Petition on Householder as an AUSD Trustee was approved by the County Elections Office in 2 days !!

The revised Recall Petition on Mayor Thorpe that was submitted on October 25th was identical to the Recall Petition that the County Elections Office approved, in format, font and layout.

This is reflecting poorly on the City and the administration of the City Clerks [sic] Office. By definition, the Deputy City Clerk is the Deputy Elections Officer.

What is even more egregious is that City Clerk Householder is not providing a copy of the findings to the Deputy City Clerk to file in the MUFFS filing system as a Public Document that is meant to be available to any member of the public to review upon request in accordance with the California Public Records Act.

I am requesting your review of the requirements of the Elections Code with regard to the Recall process and ensure that it is being properly administered in a timely manner.

Respectfully,

Arne Simonsen, MMC

“Householder Unfairly Delaying Process”

“This is the second time this has happened,” Cabrera said when reached for comment, reiterating what Simonsen wrote. “The first time the recall answer was due, I asked Deputy City Clerk Christina Garcia for a copy of the written response from Ellie. She told me they didn’t have a copy of it. I was kind of dumbfounded by that because I thought all documents needed to be retained at City Hall.”

“I was also told Ellie is a remote worker,” Cabrera continued. “So, I asked ‘are you telling me Ellie took it home with her?’ Christina said she didn’t know, but only that a copy wasn’t on file in the office. I had to wait two more days for the certified mail to arrive at my house.”

“If the city clerk’s response is a denial because we have to correct something in the petition, that it doesn’t meet state guidelines, we only have 10 days to correct and resubmit. We’re left in limbo for two days while it’s in the mail.”

The recall proponents are required to have the response letter giving approval before signature gathering can begin. Householder’s first letter said the “petition format…does not meet the requirements of the Elections Code as to form and wording.” The letter also provided two areas that needed to be corrected but didn’t provide the specifics.

Householder “was supposed to cite specifically what was wrong” with the first petition. “But she didn’t,” Cabrera shared. “I can honestly say that one of the sections was incorrect. But she was very vague.”

“We had to go to the County Elections office to get a template of a properly formatted recall petition that complies with state requirements because Ellie didn’t provide one,” Cabrera continued.

Cabrera again asked Householder via email to provide her second response letter via email.

“I emailed Ellie multiple times asking her respectfully to send her letter by email. But she refused,” Cabrera stated. “It only requires that we’re informed in writing. An email is in writing.”

“Instead, yesterday, she mailed her response letter from the Rivertown Post Office on West Fourth Street where it was dropped off at 2:19 p.m.” Cabrera explained. “At 5:45 p.m. Ellie responded by email that she had mailed it. Then, at 6:01 p.m. she emailed me pictures of the certified mail receipt with the tracking number. I checked the tracking and saw that at 5:29 p.m. it had departed Antioch heading to Oakland. So, she knew it was too late for me to go to the downtown post office and intercept it.”

Cabrera’s office is in a retail location across from City Hall.

“I was there at that time Ellie could have just handed it to me,” she said.

“Why can she email me all this other stuff but couldn’t email me a copy of her response letter?”  Cabrera asked.

“It’s blatant she’s not willing to be cooperative in this process or to comply with any requests we’ve made.”

“She’s unfairly delaying the process. I think Ellie’s intentionally dragging her feet. That’s because she’s friends and allies with the mayor,” she added. “I’m hoping we get her letter on Saturday. Otherwise we have to wait until Monday.”

Cabrera’s and Householder’s Emails

From: Kathleen Cabrera
Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 4:19 PM
To: Householder, Ellie <ehouseholder@antiochca.gov>
Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@ci.antioch.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Public Records Request

Ms. householder,

I am respectfully requesting your response to the corrected Recall Thorpe Petition due by 11/4/21 be issued to me by email. Will this email request suffice?

Thank You,

Kathy Cabrera

925-595-0678

From: “Householder, Ellie” <ehouseholder@antiochca.gov>
Date: November 4, 2021 at 5:45:41 PM PDT
To: Kathleen Cabrera
Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@ci.antioch.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Public Records Request
Ms. Cabrera,

Elections Code does not prescribe the method for a response, only that it be made in writing (EC 11224).

Now that the petition response has been mailed, you can submit a Public Records Request for the petition response letter. For convenience, I have attached a blank form to this email.

Regards,

Ellie Householder, MPP

Antioch City Clerk | Elections Official

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Public involvement is encouraged. Antioch is currently in District 2.

The BART Board of Directors’ Redistricting Committee is scheduled to hold its first meeting since receiving the 2020 Census data to begin the process of redrawing election districts to align with current population information. The virtual meeting will be held Wednesday, November 10, 2021 from 1 to 3pm.

The BART Redistricting Committee consists of Directors Lateefah Simon (Chairperson), Elizabeth Ames and Mark Foley.

BART election districts are redrawn every 10 years following the U.S. Census. The primary purpose of redistricting is to ensure population equality among districts.  This process is guided by traditional redistricting principles as well as the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, the federal Voting Rights Act and the BART District Act.

Information about current District boundaries

BART 2011 Election Districts Final Report – Adopted 12/1/2011 (10 Mb .pdf file)

All BART Districts
Counties Included: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco
Map: All BART Districts (.pdf file)

District: 1
Counties Included: Contra Costa
Cities Included: Acalanes Ridge, Alamo, Alhambra Valley, Blackhawk, Camino Tassajara, Castle Hill, Clayton, Concord, Contra Costa Centre, Danville, Diablo, Lafayette, Martinez, Mountain View, Norris Canyon, North Gate, Pacheco, Pleasant Hill, Port Costa, Reliez Valley, San Miguel, San Ramon, Saranap, Shell Ridge, Vine Hill, Walnut Creek
Map: BART District 1 (.pdf file)

District: 2
Counties Included: Contra Costa
Cities Included: Antioch, Bay Point, Bethel Island, Brentwood, Byron, Clyde, Concord, Discovery Bay, Knightsen, Oakley, Pacheco, Pittsburg, Vine Hill
Map: BART District 2 (.pdf file)

District: 3
Counties Included: Alameda, Contra Costa
Cities Included: Albany, Ashland, Berkeley, Castro Valley, Cherryland, El Cerrito, Kensington, Lafayette, Moraga, Oakland, Orinda, Piedmont, San Lorenzo
Map: BART District 3 (.pdf file)

District: 4
Counties Included: Alameda
Cities Included: Alameda, Oakland, San Leandro
Map: BART District 4 (.pdf file)

District: 5
Counties Included: Alameda
Cities Included: Castro Valley, Cherryland, Dublin, Fairview, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, Sunol
Map: BART District 5 (.pdf file)

District: 6
Counties Included: Alameda
Cities Included: Fremont, Hayward (partial), Newark, Sunol, Union City
Map: BART District 6 (.pdf file)

District: 7
Counties Included: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco
Cities Included: Albany, Bayview, Berkeley, Crockett, East Richmond Heights, El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Emeryville, Hercules, Kensington, Montalvin Manor, North Richmond, Oakland, Pinole, Richmond, Rodeo, Rollingwood, San Francisco, San Pablo, Tara Hills
Map: BART District 7 (.pdf file)

District: 8
Cities Included: San Francisco
Counties Included: San Francisco
Map: BART District 8 (.pdf file)

District: 9
Cities Included: San Francisco
Counties Included: San Francisco
Map: BART District 9 (.pdf file)

 

In multiple languages

By Sharon Rummery, Public Affairs Officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

SAN FRANCISCO — Officers from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will present six virtual information sessions from Nov. 3 to 30, including citizenship preparation sessions presented in Spanish and Thai. Those who need an accommodation should contact  SFSJ.CommunityRelations@uscis.DHS.gov.

What & When

Immigration Overview

Wednesday, November 3, 4 to 4:30 p.m.

Webex Link: https://uscis.webex.com/uscis/j.php?MTID=m63b4d5bc6ab478be3c96c4840fc7e8c8

Meeting number (access code): 2761 682 5187

Meeting password: CIS1234!goCA

Naturalization Information – How to Become a U.S. Citizen

Thursday, November 4, 5 to 6:00 p.m.

Webex Link: https://uscis.webex.com/uscis/j.php?MTID=me33ac665f22d8fc68daff3b52ef1572d

Meeting number (access code): 2763 827 2230

Meeting password: 6mXFBvJBU$34

ข้อมูลการแปลงสัญชาติ วิธีการเป็ นพลเมืองสหรัฐฯ

K̄ĥxmūl kār pælngs̄ ạỵchāti wiṭhī kār pĕn phlmeụ̄ xng s̄h̄rạṭ̄h‡

Naturalization Information – How to Become a U.S. Citizen (Thai language)

Sunday, November 7, 1:30PM to 3:00PM (Presenter: Jeff Hilliard, San Diego)

Webex Link: https://uscis.webex.com/uscis/j.php?MTID=m5fac5fbf94519a1111b0311c2c61fd64

Meeting number (access code): 2764 254 4630

Meeting password: JJbCU4GDM95*

Naturalization Information – How to Become a U.S. Citizen

Tuesday, November 9, 7:30 to 8:30 p.m.

Webex Link: https://uscis.webex.com/uscis/j.php?MTID=m3a3a7bb871d91993144ca57cf0e1bc7b

Meeting number (access code): 2764 823 6756

Meeting password: Sfrsnjsacfre123!

Como Convertirse en Ciudadano Estadounidense (Spanish only)

Viernes, 19 de noviembre, 5 a 6 p.m.

Webex Link: https://uscis.webex.com/uscis/j.php?MTID=ma5817ca55e2061eec5bb69b3f0ecf03c

Meeting number (access code): 2762 810 5758

Meeting password: 5iGixJbmN4$4

Options for Victims of Crimes

Tuesday, November 30, 3 to 4 p.m.

Webex Link: https://uscis.webex.com/uscis/j.php?MTID=m303d806b5b1626bc1e709aaba69159a0

Meeting number (access code): 2760 844 8368

Meeting password: CIS1234!goCA

How – Instructions for participating:

We encourage you to join 10 minutes early. Call in at 1-415-527-5035 and use the Meeting Number to join.

1. If you are using a computer, use Google Chrome. Click on “Join from your browser” to join the meeting.
2. If you are using a phone or tablet, it is best to download the Cisco WebEx Meeting App

(it is free).

3. To request a disability accommodation, please contact us no less than 3 days prior to the event. USCIS strives to meet accommodation requests whenever possible.

www.uscis.gov USCIS Contact Center: 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833)

To find all USCIS webinars, go to https://www.uscis.gov/outreach/upcoming-local-engagements.

For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit uscis.gov or follow us on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

But doesn’t negotiate contract during almost two-hour closed-door morning session

By Allen Payton

This morning, Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2021, the Antioch City Council held a special, closed session meeting at 9:00 a.m., to discuss the recruitment of and to negotiate with a potential interim city manager candidate, according to the agenda. However, the council met with more than one candidate. The council did not discuss the recruitment process for hiring a more permanent manager as was previously and incorrectly reported. (See related article)

It is the result of the announcement by City Manager Ron Bernal in September that he is retiring at the end of the year. (See related article)

The items on the agenda were publicly noticed as, “1) PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT: Recruitment of City Manager pursuant to Government Code section 54957, and 2) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government Code section 54957.6. Unrepresented employee: Interim City Manager Candidate.”

There were no public comments made about either item, prior to closed session. After almost two hours, the council returned to open session and City Attorney Thomas L. Smith said, “no reportable action was taken,” regarding the recruitment process.

Then on the matter of negotiating with a candidate to be interim city manager, Smith said, “it was not discussed by the city council and no reportable action was taken.” However, that was not completely accurate.

Questions were sent to Smith, City Manager Ron Bernal and Mayor Lamar Thorpe asking, “will the process for hiring an interim city manager and recruitment to fill the position be shared during a public council meeting? Will the candidates for both be interviewed in public, so the public will have the opportunity to comment on them, and will the council take their votes during a public meeting before they are hired, as has been past practice? Is that legally required?”

In addition, the following questions were also asked of Thorpe and all four council members: “why was the meeting held today and in the morning? Did you or the council change your minds and decide not to negotiate with an interim candidate? Why didn’t that occur? Did the candidate withdraw their interest in the position? Will you be voting in public when hiring the interim and filling the city manager position, and allow the public to give their input before you do?”

District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock responded with, “Please contact the city attorney to give you clarity.”

The city attorney was then asked about his report from the closed session regarding negotiations with the interim city manager candidate, including, “does that mean the council changed their minds and decided not to negotiate with an interim candidate and no candidate participated in the closed session? Or did the candidate withdraw their interest in the position?”

Attorney Smith was also asked, “did a candidate or more than one candidate for the position of interim city manager attend and participate in that part of the closed session and negotiate with the city council members? If so, that isn’t a matter of secrecy since it was agendized as such, correct?”

When reached for comment, District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica said he spoke with Smith to get clarification. “Everything followed the agenda,” Barbanica said. “We did what the council agenda said.”

“Yes, we did in fact meet with potential candidates for the interim city manager position,” he confirmed. “But I can’t discuss the details of closed session meetings.”

“The other item was in terms of a contract with the interim candidates, and we never got to that,” Barbanica added. “That’s what Thomas was referring to.”

Smith later responded, further clarifying the agenda items and what transpired, “The meeting with candidates was covered under Item 1.  Item 2, terms of contract, was not discussed. Both items concern the Interim City Manager position.”

Additional questions were then sent to all five council members, asking, “How were the candidates with whom you met, this morning, recruited? Were any of them suggested by any of you? Was something posted somewhere publicly or internally to city staff?”

No responses to the other questions of council and staff were received prior to publication time.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

 

By Allen Payton

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) San Francisco field office joined with the City of Pittsburg to present a special naturalization ceremony at the council chambers on Thursday, Oct. 28, 2021. At the event, 25 immigrants from 13 nations became U.S citizens. (See Zoom video – begins at 5-minute mark)

Nine the new U.S. citizens were from the Philippines, three from Mexico, two each from India and the United Kingdom, and one each from El Salvador, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Kazakhstan, Liberia, Mongolia, Nicaragua and Pakistan.

Four of the new citizens shared about themselves. Antioch resident Sergio Roque Henriquez came here from El Salvador at age 16, speaking no English.

“I had a goal, to go to school,” he said.

His cousins helped him get an exception and enter the local junior college’s English as a Second Language classes. Now, he’s married, dad of two, ages 16 and 11 and works as a chef.

Roya Yousefelahiyeh, of Concord, came here from Iran to study, and now works as a civil engineer in wastewater treatment. Pittsburg resident Suku Varney, from Liberia applied, as do millions of others, for the diversity visa. He was selected at random and got the golden opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. As a student at San Francisco State, he’s doing an internship in Superior Court, and hopes to go to law school.

Concord resident Liswana “Celilia” Judanu, formerly of Indonesia. She came here in 1978 to join her brothers after being rejected by the State Department for a visitor visa. Back home, Celilia had studied English, so she did well and wound up as a long-time employee of Wells Fargo, working now as a credit associate.

The keynote speaker was Pittsburg Mayor Merl Craft and opening remarks were presented by Councilwoman Shanelle Scales-Preston USCIS San Francisco District Chief of Staff Joseph Hamilton administered the Oath of Allegiance, and Assistant Director of Economic Development & Recreation Kolette Simonton sang the National Anthem.

“We are so proud to have hosted Pittsburg’s first-ever naturalization ceremony alongside USCIS,” said Melaine Venenciano of the Pittsburg Community Services Department.

“It was a wonderful event, and it went so smoothly,” said Joseph J. Hamilton, Chief of Staff, District 42, USCIS. “I have no doubt that our 25 newest citizens will forever have fond memories of their naturalization ceremony and the City of Pittsburg.”

USCIS naturalized approximately 625,000 people in fiscal year 2020. Many of them applied using USCIS online tools. More than seven million people have applied online for immigration benefits. To file online, individuals must first create a USCIS online account at USCIS naturalized approximately 625,000 people in fiscal year 2020. Many of them applied using USCIS online tools. More than seven million people have applied online for immigration benefits. To file online, individuals must first create a USCIS online account at https://myaccount.uscis.gov/.

USCIS encourages new U.S. citizens to share their naturalization photos on social media using the hashtag #NewUSCitizen.

Facts on Naturalization

Since our founding, the United States has welcomed immigrants from all over the world who have helped shape and define our country. During the last decade, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services welcomed more than 7.3 million new citizens into the fabric of our nation. Despite extended office closures and the impacts of the COVID-19 global pandemic, USCIS naturalized approximately 625,400 in fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Deciding to become a U.S. citizen is a personal decision and an important milestone in an immigrant’s life. Individuals who naturalize demonstrate a commitment to the principles that unify us as Americans and, in return, enjoy the rights and privileges that are fundamental to U.S. citizenship. We are committed to making the naturalization process more accessible to everyone who wants to start their citizenship journey.

About the Naturalization Process

People age 18 or older seeking to become U.S. citizens apply for naturalization by submitting Form N–400, Application for Naturalization. The N-400 application is available for online filing. An applicant must meet all the eligibility requirements in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to naturalize.

These general eligibility requirements specify that the applicant must:

• Be at least 18 years of age when they submit the N-400 application;
• Be a lawful permanent resident (have a Green Card) for at least five years;
• Demonstrate continuous residence in the United States for at least five years immediately before applying for naturalization;
• Have been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months;
• Be a person of good moral character;
• Demonstrate an understanding of the English language including the ability to read, write, and speak basic English;
• Have knowledge of U.S. government and history (civics);
• Demonstrate attachment to the principles and ideals of the U.S. Constitution; and
• Be willing and able to take the Oath of Allegiance.  

Special naturalization provisions modify these requirements for certain applicants or exempt them from one or more of these requirements. Among the applicants exempt from some of these requirements are spouses of U.S. citizens or members of the military.

• Individuals may apply for naturalization as the spouse of a U.S. citizen just three years after they receive a Green Card, instead of waiting five years. They must have been physically present in the United States for at least 18 months.
• Spouses of U.S. citizens stationed abroad may not have to meet any particular residence or physical presence requirements.
• Members of the military who served honorably during certain periods of conflict may be eligible for naturalization even if they do not have a Green Card and even if they are under the age of 18.
• Members of the military who served honorably for at least one year, at any time, and apply for naturalization within a certain time after their military service, are also exempt from the general residence and physical presence requirements.

Everyone filing an N-400 application who submits a complete application with all required documents will have an interview with a USCIS officer. Applicants we approve for naturalization are scheduled for a ceremony before a judge or with USCIS. They do not become U.S. citizens until they have taken the Oath of Allegiance.  

Naturalization Statistics

• Since 2005, USCIS has welcomed approximately 730,000 citizens each year during naturalization ceremonies across the United States and around the world.
• In FY 2020, 70 percent of all naturalized citizens lived in 10 states: California, Florida, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, Georgia and Virginia.
• In FY 2020, the leading metropolitan areas of residence were New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA (10 percent), Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL (8 percent), and Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA (7 percent).
• In FY 2020, the top five countries of origin for naturalized citizens were: Mexico (82,700), India (47,900), Philippines (33,100), Cuba (31,000), and China (23,000). Since 2002, we have naturalized more than 139,000 members of the U.S. military, both at home and abroad. We have held naturalization ceremonies in more than 30 countries from Albania to the United Arab Emirates. In the last five years (FY 2016-20), we naturalized almost 30,000 service members. In FY 2020, we naturalized more than 4,500 service members, about the same number as the previous year.
• More than 40% of those we have naturalized since FY 2016 have been service members born in the Philippines, Mexico, China, South Korea and Jamaica—the top five countries of birth among citizens naturalized in that time span. Another 17% of military naturalizations from FY 2016-20 have been immigrants from the next five countries of birth: Nigeria, Nepal, India, Ghana and Kenya.

For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit uscis.gov or follow us on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

There are three U.S. immigration agencies within the Department of Homeland Security.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Following are the responsibilities of each agency:

USCIS

• Adjudication of applications to gain immigrant status, based on family or work petitions, refugee or asylee status or through the Violence Against Women Act.
• Adjudication of naturalization applications
• Adjudication of asylum and refugee applications
• E-Verify employment verification
• Help with foreign adoptions
• Adjudication of work-related non-immigrant visas
• Adjudication of T and U visas (victim visas)
• E-Verify

ICE

• Homeland Security Investigations
• Preventing Terrorism
• Illegal Movement of People and Goods
• Immigration Enforcement
• Fugitive Operations
• Detention and Removal Management

CBP

• Inspections involving customs law
• Inspections involving immigration law
• Border Patrol
• USDA-APHIS agricultural quarantine inspections program

Sharon Rummery, Public Affairs Officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services contributed to this report.

No answers to questions of why the morning meeting and urgency for choosing an interim since Bernal isn’t retiring until end of year, how many candidates nor who they are

By Allen Payton

The Antioch City Council will hold a special 9:00 a.m. closed session meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2021, to discuss the recruitment of a new city manager and to negotiate with a potential interim city manager candidate. ACC110221 Special Mtg

The public can make comments on both items before the council adjourns into the closed session. The mayor will report out what actions were taken following the conclusion of their closed-door meeting.

Questions were sent to the mayor, council members, City Manager Ron Bernal, Assistant City Manager Rosanna Bayon Moore and City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith. They were asked, so that the public can provide informed public comment for your closed session meeting next Tuesday, who is the candidate with whom you will be negotiating for the Interim City Manager position, please?

They were also asked if it is Assistant City Manager Rosanna Bayon Moore, is it, as has been rumored, City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, or someone else. Additional questions were also asked of Bernal, Mayor Lamar Thorpe, and Councilmembers Lori Ogorchock and Mike Barbanica why hold the meeting at 9:00 a.m. when most people would be at work, what the urgency was and why the  meeting couldn’t be held during their regular meeting the following Tuesday (since Bernal isn’t retiring until the end of the year). They were also asked if Bernal was leaving that day and using his accrued vacation time. (See related article)

Both Ogorchock and Barbanica said they didn’t know how many candidates their were for the interim position, nor why the meeting was being held next Tuesday in the morning. But each of them said they couldn’t say anything more about the matter.

Smith was out of the office on Friday and attempts to reach the mayor, the other council members and Bernal were unsuccessful throughout Friday afternoon.

Viewing

Members of the public can watch the meeting at https://www.antiochca.gov/live_stream, on Comcast Channel 24, or AT&T U-Verse Channel 99.

Public Comments

Members of the public wishing to provide public comment may do so one of the following ways (#2 pertains to the Zoom Webinar):

1. Fill out an online speaker card by 7:00 a.m. the day of the Council Meeting located at:

1. Provide oral public comments during the meeting by clicking the following link to register in advance to access the meeting via Zoom Webinar: https://www.antiochca.gov/speakers

– You will be asked to enter an email address and a name. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. After registering, you will receive an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting.

– When the Mayor announces public comments, click the “raise hand” feature in Zoom. For instructions on using the “raise hand” feature in Zoom, visit: https://www.antiochca.gov/raise_hand. When calling into the meeting using the Zoom Webinar telephone number, press *9 on your telephone keypad to “raise your hand”. Please ensure your Zoom client is updated so staff can enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak.

1. Email comments to cityclerk@ci.antioch.ca.us by 7:00 a.m. the day of the Council Meeting. The comment will be read into the record at the meeting (350 words maximum, up to 3 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor). IMPORTANT: Identify the agenda item in the subject line of your email if the comment is for Announcement of Community Events, Public Comment, or a specific Agenda Item number. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during “Public Comments”.

All emails received by 7:00 a.m. the day of the Council Meeting will be entered into the record for the meeting. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.