Emails show she wanted to have board “investigate” last Friday’s incident at Antioch High; superintendent refuses claiming violations of employees’ and student’s rights, her contract and Board Policy

By Allen Payton

In response to last Friday’s incident with a violent student at Antioch High School, which was caught on video that she posted on her official Facebook page, Antioch School Board President Ellie Householder has called a special meeting for Thursday, Sept. 2 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss “District-wide Use of Force Policies and Procedures”. (See related article)

Householder posted an announcement of the meeting as an event on Facebook on Tuesday, August 31, at about 2:00 p.m. but it wasn’t posted on the district’s website until Wednesday afternoon.

Although the board president has the authority to call special meetings, which require just a 24-hour public notification, board policy requires it be an item of urgency that can’t wait for the next regular meeting, which requires a 72-hour public notification. The next regularly board meeting is scheduled for next Wed., Sept. 8.

Attempts to reach Householder to ask why the matter couldn’t wait until next week to be discussed were unsuccessful before publication time.

In response to a Public Records Act request, emails between Householder and Superintendent Stephanie Anello show the board president wanted the board to investigate the incident writing, “I have consulted with Vice President Dr. Lewis, and he agreed there are unanswered questions regarding the video of the incident at Antioch High on 8/27.

Please take this email as my official notice calling for a Special Meeting for Thursday, September 2nd at 6 PM, to investigate this incident. There will only need to be one item for discussion/action by the Board: ‘Inquiry into Social Media Post Circulated on August 27th incident at Antioch High School.’

• I would like AUSD staff to be involved for questions, including administration and site safety.
• Additionally, please invite Strategic Threat Management since we contract with them.
• Please attach with this agenda item (1) Strategic Threat Management’s contract, (2) job duties for site safety personnel, and (3) and [sic] written policies that outline how violent situations regarding students is [sic] handled – this can be Antioch High specific, Board Policy, the District’s safety plan – anything to help the board understand different scenarios and responses.
• Lastly, please provide any data we have on student arrests for the last 4-5 years, including but not limited to number of arrests, reasons, school site, grade, gender, and race. Typically, I would only ask for 3 years of data, however, because of COVID, I am extending that time span.”

Anello agreed to schedule the meeting, but refused the remainder of Householder’s requests writing, “I am happy to schedule a Special Meeting. Unfortunately, I can’t agree to the agenda items you requested below for the following reasons:

• This is an ongoing investigation (at the time of your request, staff has had less than 24 business hours to investigate);
• You are asking me to violate employee’s rights;
• You are asking me to violate a student’s right to privacy;
• You are breaching my employment contract;
• You are violating Board Policy;

I’m sure there are many other ethical violations included in this request.

The one item I do believe the Board may discuss at this time is the STM contract. However, I want to go on record as stating I believe that absent of an investigation, this is inappropriate at this time. However, if this is what you would like the Board to consider, please advise and I will calendar the meeting.”

In response, Householder requested the contact information for the district’s attorney.

See complete email exchange between Householder and district staff regarding the special meeting, here: 083121 emails Householder & district staff CPRA 090121

Lewis Responds

When Lewis was asked to confirm his conversation with Householder, and if he supported having the board investigate the incident and her requests of Anello he responded, “No. I mentioned that it should review the procedures since the meeting had been called. That conversation happened after the decision to have the meeting was determined.”

Meeting Viewing and Public Comment Information

The meeting will be livestreamed and can be viewed at https://youtu.be/F-Dsas_w-s0. Persons wishing to make a public comment on items on the agenda can submit their comments until 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments can be submitted via an online form at https://tinyurl.com/ausd-public-comment-card or by email to kelliecavallaro@antiochschools.net. Comments received by 4:00 p.m. will be read to the public during the meeting.

Requirements for Calling Special Board Meetings

Education Code 35144 – Special Meetings:

A special meeting of the governing board of a school district may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the board, or by a majority of the members thereof, by delivering personally or by mail written notice to each member of the board, and to each local newspaper of general circulation, radio, or television station requesting notice in writing. The notice shall be delivered personally or by mail at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting as specified in the notice. The call and notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted. No other business shall be considered at those meetings by the governing board. The written notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the time the meeting convenes files with the clerk or secretary of the board a written waiver of notice. The waiver may be given by telegram. The written notice may also be dispensed with as to any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes.

The call and notice shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to the special meeting in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public and district employees.

(Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 641, Sec. 1.)

From Government Code – Brown Act – Open Meeting Laws; Special Meetings:

a) A special meeting may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the legislative body of a local agency, or by a majority of the members of the legislative body, by delivering written notice to each member of the legislative body and to each local newspaper of general circulation and radio or television station requesting notice in writing and posting a notice on the local agency’s Internet Web site, if the local agency has one. The notice shall be delivered personally or by any other means and shall be received at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting as specified in the notice. The call and notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted or discussed. No other business shall be considered at these meetings by the legislative body. The written notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the time the meeting convenes files with the clerk or secretary of the legislative body a written waiver of notice. The waiver may be given by telegram. The written notice may also be dispensed with as to any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes.

The call and notice shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to the special meeting in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public.

AUSD policy BB 9320 Meetings and Notices regarding who can call a Special Meeting:

Special meetings of the Board may be called at any time by the presiding officer or a majority of the Board members.  However, a special meeting shall not be called regarding the salary, salary schedule, or other compensation of the Superintendent, assistant superintendent, or other management employee as described in Government Code 3511.1. (Government Code 54956)

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

By U.S. Department of Justice

Sutter Health, a California-based health care services provider, and several affiliated entities including Sutter Bay Medical Foundation (dba Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Sutter East Bay Medical Foundation, and Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation) and Sutter Valley Medical Foundation (dba Sutter Gould Medical Foundation and Sutter Medical Foundation) (collectively, “Sutter Health”), have agreed to pay $90 million to resolve allegations that Sutter Health violated the False Claims Act by knowingly submitting inaccurate information about the health status of beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage Plans.

Under Medicare Advantage, also known as the Medicare Part C program, Medicare beneficiaries have the option of enrolling in managed health care insurance plans called Medicare Advantage Plans. The plans are paid a capitated, or per-person, amount to provide Medicare-covered benefits to beneficiaries who enroll in one of their plans. Payments to plans are based on demographic information and the health status of each plan beneficiary. In general, plans receive larger payments for beneficiaries with more severe diagnoses.

Sutter Health, headquartered in Sacramento, contracted to provide health care services to California beneficiaries enrolled in certain plans. In exchange, Sutter Health received a portion of the payments for treating the beneficiaries under its care.

The government alleged that Sutter Health knowingly submitted unsupported diagnosis codes for certain patient encounters for beneficiaries under its care. These unsupported diagnosis codes caused inflated payments to be made to the plans and to Sutter Health. The lawsuit further alleged that, once Sutter Health became aware of these unsupported diagnosis codes, it failed to take sufficient corrective action to identify and delete additional unsupported diagnosis codes.

“The government relies on health care providers, including those furnishing services to Medicare Part C beneficiaries, to submit accurate information to ensure proper payment,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sarah E. Harrington of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “Today’s result sends a clear message that we will hold health care providers responsible if they knowingly provide or fail to correct information that is untruthful.”

“Today’s settlement exemplifies our commitment to fighting fraud in the Medicare program,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Stephanie M. Hinds for the Northern District of California. “Health care providers who flout the law need to know that my office will hold accountable those who pad their bottom line at taxpayer expense.”

“The knowing submission of inaccurate information to Medicare diverts funds from this vital health care program, which is a disservice to patients needing care,” said Special Agent in Charge Steven J. Ryan for the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to protect the integrity of federal health care programs and hold accountable entities who engage in false claims practices.”

In connection with the settlement, Sutter Health, Sutter Bay Medical Foundation and Sutter Valley Medical Foundation entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). The CIA requires, among other things, that Sutter Health implement a centralized risk assessment program as part of its compliance program and hire an Independent Review Organization to annually review a sample of Sutter Health’s Medicare Advantage patients’ medical records and associated diagnoses data.

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by Kathleen Ormsby, a former employee of Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Under those provisions, a private party can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of any recovery. The Act permits the government to intervene in such lawsuits, as it has done in this case as to claims submitted for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Although the United States did not intervene as to claims submitted by the remaining Sutter affiliates, Ms. Ormsby continued to pursue those claims, some of which are also being resolved by this settlement. The qui tam case is captioned United States ex rel. Ormsby v. Sutter Health, et al., No. 15-CV-01062-LB (N.D. Cal.).

The resolution obtained in this matter resulted from a coordinated effort between the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, with assistance from HHS-OIG.

The investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement, can be reported to the Department of Health and Human Services at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).

The matter was handled by Attorneys Olga Yevtukhova, Jennifer J. Koh, Thomas Morris and Lyle Gruby of the Civil Division’s Fraud Section and by Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wolinsky for the Northern District of California, with assistance from Jonathan Birch.

Sutter Health Responds

Sutter Health on Monday, Aug. 30, 2021 announced that it has entered into an agreement with the federal government and a private plaintiff to resolve a False Claims Act lawsuit filed in 2015 involving Medicare Advantage claims related to its medical foundation operations. The matter was partially resolved in April 2019 for $30 million (a fact not included by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in its press release regarding the settlement). Under the follow-on agreement announced today, Sutter will pay an additional $60 million (not $90 million) to fully resolve the litigation. The agreement makes clear that Sutter and its medical foundation affiliates admit no liability in agreeing to settle the matter.

As part of this resolution, Sutter has also concurrently entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The CIA, Sutter’s first, is intended to promote compliance with federal healthcare program requirements over a period of five years and includes specific elements that must be in place and monitored.

Sutter’s Ethics and Compliance Services team is responsible for overseeing Sutter’s compliance with the CIA. Sutter looks forward to collaborating with OIG over the term of the agreement. In 2017, PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted a compliance program assessment finding Sutter’s program to be effective, with several areas identified as leading practices. Sutter has since maintained and enhanced these program elements and is well-prepared to implement the terms of the agreement.

Today’s agreements bring closure to a long-running dispute, allowing Sutter to avoid the uncertainty and further expense of protracted litigation, and enabling a constructive relationship with the government as we work together under the CIA.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability.

 

 

Discount will apply to all fares on Clipper and will be stackable with Youth, Senior, RTC, Clipper Start and Gator Pass Clipper discounts.

BART will offer a special promotion of 50% off all fares on Clipper for the entire month of September 2021.

The discount will apply to all fares on Clipper and will be stackable with other Clipper discounts. That means 50% off will be given on top of already discounted Clipper cards such as Youth, Senior, RTC, Clipper Start, and the Gator Pass.

The reduced fare will be automatically deducted when using Clipper at the fare gates. Our online Trip Planner and Fare Calculator have been updated to show discounted fares during the month of September. While BART will share discounted fares with other apps and websites , we can’t guarantee that non-BART sources will display them.

Printed fare charts at vending machines in each station will not be changed for the month of September but a large decal will be posted noting there is 50% off the published fares.

BART is extending the discount to welcome riders back to the system and to thank those who have continued to ride throughout the pandemic. BART’s ridership continues to grow each week. Current weekday ridership is at 100,000 trips, representing 25% of pre-COVID weekday ridership. Weekends are recovering at a faster rate. Weekend ridership is at 45K-65K trips, representing 40% of pre-COVID weekend ridership.

As of September 1, the various transit agencies that connect with BART will have new schedules in place that offer improved connections between systems. Many agencies are also offering discounts and other special promotions during the month of September.

Visit www.AllAboardBayArea.com for details on how all 27 Bay Area agencies are collaborating to deliver services that will restart our region and get people where they need to go.

Get Clipper

The discount is only available when using Clipper. It is not available on magstripe paper tickets. 98.6% of our riders use Clipper cards. There is a one-time $3 fee to purchase a new Clipper card from a BART station vending machine. Clipper is currently offering free Clipper cards when setting up a new Clipper card using the new Clipper app. The card is also free if you  order it online and set up automatic reloading.

Clipper Discount Cards

BART’s 50% off in September promotion is stackable with other Clipper discounts available for youth, seniors, riders with disabilities, and low-income adult riders. Proof of eligibility is required for discount Clipper cards and therefore are not available at station vending machines.

• Youth 5-18 years old get 50% off BART with a youth Clipper card.
• Seniors 65 and over get 62.5% off BART with a Senior Clipper card.
• Qualifying low-income adult riders get 20% off BART with Clipper START.
• Riders with qualifying disabilities get 62.5% off BART with the RTC Clipper card.

Youth, senior, and START cards are all free and BART does not charge for RTC cards when obtained at our customer service window at the Lake Merritt Station.

Faces possible prison sentence of almost 35 years

By Scott Alonso, PIO, Contra Costa County Office of the District Attorney

Earlier this month, defendant Brandon Lamont Lindsey of Antioch (born March 20, 1994) was found guilty as charged for the attempted murder and attempted robbery of a Yuba City man. Further, a Contra Costa County jury found true the enhancements listed in the charges against Lindsey, including the discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury.

Antioch Police believed the incident to be an attempted robbery at the time. (See related article)

On September 21, 2018, Lindsey arranged to sell opioids to the victim and the victim’s partner in Antioch. Specifically, Lindsey told the victim to meet him on Cavallo Road. Before this meeting, the victim and defendant did not know each or other. The drug sale was set up by a mutual friend of the victim. Upon the pair meeting for the first time on Cavallo Road, Lindsey instructed the victim to bring his car down an isolated road for the sale.

Lindsey conveyed to the victim that his associate would bring the pills in a separate car. Moments after the victim moved his car, another car was positioned and blocked the driveway, which prevented the victim from leaving the scene. Lindsey approached the victim and pulled out a firearm and demanded money. Lindsey fired three times inside the car at point blank range. One bullet struck the victim through his left arm causing a partial loss of mobility in his left hand. Lindsey used a 9mm handgun during the attempted murder and attempted robbery.

In total, the jury found Lindsey guilty of four counts:

• Attempted Murder
  • Enhancement 1, Personal and Intentional Discharge of a Firearm, Causing Great Bodily Injury
• Shooting at Occupied Motor Vehicle
  • Enhancement 2, Personal and Intentional Discharge of a Firearm, Causing Great Bodily Injury
• Assault with a Semiautomatic Firearm
  • Enhancement 3, Use of a Firearm
• Attempted Second Degree Robbery
  • Enhancement 4, Personal and Intentional Discharge of a Firearm, Causing Great Bodily Injury

Deputy District Attorney Kate Dunbar prosecuted the case on behalf of the People. The defendant will be sentenced on October 15 before the Honorable Charles Burch. Lindsey faces up to 34 years and 8 months to life in state prison. The case was investigated by the Antioch Police Department.

Case information: People v. Brandon Lamont Lindsey, Docket Number 05-200113-9.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

 

Both Antioch School Board President Householder, Councilwoman Torres-Walker post video before details were known

By Allen Payton

Following the posting of a TikTok video on Facebook of a police incident with a recent student at Antioch High School, Principal Louie Rocha sent out an email to parents providing more details. Both school board president Ellie Householder and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker posted the video on their official Facebook pages, without providing details. (WARNING: explicit language in video)

Rocha’s email to parents reads as follows:

“This weekend, a social media post circulated regarding an August 27th incident at Antioch High School.
School personnel have a duty to intervene when a student threatens harm to other students, themselves, or staff. Unfortunately, on Friday, a student threatened to do harm to an entire class, attacked another student, and became physical with staff despite repeated attempts to deescalate the student. At that time, a trained safety officer restrained the student and Antioch Police Department was called.

Unfortunately, when officers arrived, the student continued to resist instructions and was subsequently arrested.

While the situation is unfortunate, we take the safety of all students extremely seriously and cannot allow one student to threaten the safety of others. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you,

Louie Rocha

Principal”

Householder posted the following comment with the video. “Thank you to the parents, students, and community members who reached out to bring my attention to a recent TikTok post. In it, a video appears to show an altercation between a student and safety personnel at what looks like Antioch High School. While I don’t know the details surrounding this footage, historically, we know that disciplinary practices have been unfairly applied to Black male students. That is why I take this video and the allegations of excessive force against an AUSD student very, very seriously. I will follow up with folks once I learn more information.”

With her post of the video Torres-Walker wrote, “First I would like to thank the community members who reached out to me regarding this event.

I have no idea what led up to what seems like a very traumatic event to witness for students at Antioch High school and it is unacceptable for any student to have to face this kind of unnecessary treatment after being what seems to be fully subdued by force in an academic setting. I know that the city has no power or authority over how the school district handles its business and as a mother, this short video footage deeply concerns me.

If this video is as disturbing to watch for you as it was for me I would contact the school board president and the superintendent of the Antioch Unified School District and demand some answers.

School Board President

Ellie Householder

elliehouseholder@antiochschools.net

Superintendent

Stephanie Anello

(925) 779-7500 Ext. 55100

stephanieanello@antiochschools.net

It is my understanding that the Antioch Police Department was present on the scene I am withholding judgment until I received information as to what led up to the event and the aftermath.
This is not okay!!!”

UPDATE: According to Lt. Bittner of the Antioch Police Department’s Community Policing Bureau, “On August 27, 2021 at approximately 11:21 AM, a staff member at Antioch High School called the Antioch Police Department to report a fight on campus. Antioch Police Officers arrived within several minutes and located two security guards holding a student down on the ground in the quad area of the school. Several Antioch Police Officers assisted the security guards in placing the student in handcuffs. The student was ultimately placed under arrest and transported to the Antioch Police Department for assaulting a school employee, fighting on a school campus, and resisting or delaying an arrest.”

According to an official who chose to not be identified, the student was wearing a grill on his teeth that included fangs and he was trying to bite people.

Anyone with information is asked to call the Antioch Police Department non-emergency line at (925) 778-2441. You may also text-a-tip to 274637 (CRIMES) using the key word ANTIOCH.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta Friday, August 27 lauded Judge Massullo’s final approval of a landmark $575 million settlement with Sutter Health (Sutter). The settlement agreement was reached in 2019, and resolves allegations by the Attorney General’s office, the United Food and Commercial Workers and Employers Benefit Trust (UEBT), and class action plaintiffs that Sutter’s anticompetitive practices led to higher healthcare costs for consumers in Northern California compared to other places in the state. The settlement requires Sutter to pay $575 million in compensation, prohibits anticompetitive conduct, and requires Sutter to follow certain practices to restore competition in California’s healthcare markets.

“This is a groundbreaking settlement and a win for Californians,” said AG Bonta. “Sutter will no longer have free rein to engage in anticompetitive practices that force patients to pay more for health services. Under the terms of our agreement, Sutter’s transparency must increase, and practices that decrease the accessibility and affordability of healthcare must end. A competitive healthcare market is essential to ensuring patients and families aren’t bearing the brunt of healthcare costs while one company dominates the market.”

Sutter is the largest hospital system in Northern California. The Sutter network consists of some 24 acute care hospitals, 36 ambulatory surgery centers, and 16 cardiac and cancer centers. It also includes some 12,000 physicians and over 53,000 employees. In addition, Sutter negotiates contracts on behalf of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and many affiliated physician groups.

This settlement is the result of litigation that began in 2014 when UEBT filed a class action lawsuit that challenged Sutter’s practices in rendering services and setting prices. They sought compensation for and an end to what they alleged were unlawful, anticompetitive business practices, which caused them to pay more than necessary for healthcare services and products. In March 2018, the Attorney General’s office filed a similar lawsuit against Sutter on behalf of the people of California, seeking injunctive relief to compel Sutter to correct its anticompetitive business practices moving forward. The separate lawsuits were combined by the court into one case. In October 2019, one day before the trial, the parties reached an agreement to settle. The settlement was filed with the court on December 19, 2019, and in March, Judge Massullo granted preliminary approval.

Today’s finalized settlement requires Sutter to:

• Pay $575 million to compensate employers, unions, and others covered under the class action, and to cover costs and fees associated with the legal efforts;
• Limit what it charges patients for out-of-network services, helping ensure that patients visiting an out-of-network hospital do not face outsized, surprise medical bills;
• Increase transparency by permitting insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to provide plan members with access to pricing, quality, and cost information, which helps patients make better care decisions;
• Halt measures that deny patients access to lower-cost plans, thus allowing health insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to offer and direct patients to more affordable health plan options for networks or products;
• Stop all-or-nothing contracting deals, thus allowing insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to include some but not necessarily all of Sutter’s hospitals, clinics, or other commercial products in their plans’ network.
• Cease anticompetitive bundling of services and products which forced insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to purchase for their plan offerings more services or products from Sutter than were needed. Sutter must now offer a stand-alone price that must be lower than any bundled package price to give insurers, employers, and self-funded payers more choice;
• Cooperate with a court-approved compliance monitor to ensure that Sutter is following the terms of the settlement for at least 10 years. The monitor will receive and investigate complaints and may present evidence to the court; and
• Prevent anticompetitive practices by clearly defining clinical integration to include patient quality of care. The settlement makes clear that for Sutter to claim it has clinically integrated a system, it must meet strict standards beyond regional similarities or the mere sharing of an electronic health record, and must be integrating care in a manner that takes into consideration the quality of care to the patient population. This is important because clinical integration can be used to mask market consolidation efforts by hospital systems, when in fact there is no true integration of a patient’s care. For example, saying that hospitals are regionally close or that hospitals are sharing electronic health records is not enough, there must be close coordination that will lead to less costly, higher quality care for local communities.

A report by the University of California Berkeley showed that over-consolidation drives up prices for consumers. According to the study, outpatient cardiology procedures in Southern California cost nearly $18,000 compared to almost $29,000 in Northern California. For inpatient hospital procedures, the cost in Southern California is nearly $132,000 compared to more than $223,000 in Northern California, a more than $90,000 difference. A 2016 study found that a cesarean delivery in Sacramento, where Sutter is based, costs more than $27,000, nearly double what it costs in Los Angeles or New York, making Northern California one of the most expensive places in the country to have a baby.

Sutter Health offered the following response to the settlement:

“Today’s ruling brings closure to this matter, which was settled almost two years ago. This voluntary settlement enables Sutter Health to maintain our integrated network and ability to provide patients with access to affordable, high-quality care. Sutter’s quality of care is nationally recognized, with the majority of hospitals and care facilities outperforming state and national averages in many measures of quality. We look forward to continuing to work with our health plan partners at the same time we continue to care for the underserved in our communities.”

A copy of the final approval order and judgment are available here and here.

By Jimmy Lee, Director of Public Affairs, Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff

On Saturday, August 28, 2021, at about 10:42 PM, Muir Station Deputy Sheriffs were dispatched to a call of shots fired at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Bella Vista Avenue in Bay Point. Upon arrival, deputies located a victim suffering from a gunshot wound.

Deputies immediately began providing life-saving measures. The fire department and an ambulance also responded. The victim was later pronounced deceased at the scene. He is identified as 24-year-old Pablo Bretado of Pittsburg.

A suspect was quickly identified by deputies and a description was provided to area law enforcement agencies. The Concord Police Department located the suspect who led police in a pursuit back into Bay Point. The suspect crashed and fled on foot. Concord PD officers, assisted by the California Highway Patrol, found the suspect and took him into custody.

He is identified 28-year-old Antonino Solis of Pittsburg. He was booked into the Martinez Detention Facility for murder and possession of an assault weapon.

The Homicide Unit of the Sheriff’s Office Investigation Division continues to investigate this incident. Anyone with information is asked to contact the Sheriff’s Office Investigation Division at (925) 313-2600 or through Sheriff’s Office dispatch at (925) 646-2441. For any tips, email: tips@so.cccounty.us or call (866) 846-3592 to leave an anonymous voice message.

By Dawn Kruger, Civic Outreach/Engagement Specialist Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department

Contra Costa County—Debi Cooper, County Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters announced today that the close of registration for the upcoming September 14, 2021 Gubernatorial Recall election is fast approaching on August 30th^. 

“This is the deadline for voters to register to be sent an Official Ballot in the mail and be provided their assigned polling place information if they choose to vote in person on Election Day,” she said. “After this date, voters will be required to register and vote in person.”

Register to Vote:

Voters can register to vote most conveniently online at https://registertovote.ca.gov, or complete a voter registration card available at most post offices, city halls, and libraries throughout the county.  Online registration must be completed before midnight.  Paper registration cards must be postmarked by August 30^th. 

To be eligible to vote in this election, a registered voter must be a U.S. Citizen, at least 18 years of age by Election Day, a resident of the state, and not currently serving a federal or state prison term for the conviction of a felony.

You must update your registration if you have moved or changed your name (married, divorced, etc.).

You can check your voter registration status online at http://www.cocovote.us by clicking on the “My Voting Information” button.

After the August 30^th registration deadline, new voters will be required to register and vote in person at one of the County’s early voting sites, the Elections Division in Martinez, or at a polling place on Election Day. Cooper’s advice: “Register early so you will receive a ballot in the mail. If you choose to vote in-person, already being registered will speed up the process at your polling place on Election Day.”