Nearly half of American voters have a loved one who has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. And Alzheimer’s will touch even more families in the years ahead, as the number of Americans living with the fatal disease nearly doubles by 2050.
Thankfully, scientists are developing new tools to help diagnose and manage Alzheimer’s. Among the most promising are blood tests that could help millions of Americans receive diagnoses earlier — so they can start treatment sooner.
But it’s not enough for these tools to exist. Patients need access to these promising tests as soon as they’re approved. For that to happen, Congress will need to pass legislation ensuring Medicare can cover new screening tests — and cut the red tape that currently risks preventing Alzheimer’s patients from getting the care they need.
A bipartisan bill, the Alzheimer’s Screening and Prevention (ASAP) Act, would do precisely that. The bill offers lawmakers an opportunity to remove a barrier standing between patients and earlier diagnosis, potentially allowing patients to get valuable time back.
Historically, Alzheimer’s was difficult to diagnose. Initial symptoms can be hard to recognize, particularly among older adults experiencing general cognitive decline. Doctors had to rely on a combination of medical history, physical exams, brain scans, and cerebrospinal fluid testing.
As a result, it can take patients over three years after symptoms first emerge to receive an official diagnosis.
Now, new tools are emerging that could dramatically speed up this timeline. Last year, the FDA cleared the first blood test used to help diagnose Alzheimer’s. The test detects biological markers in the blood associated with the disease, offering an easier and less invasive testing option. In the future, doctors could use similar blood tests as screening tools to identify Alzheimer’s far earlier — long before symptoms worsen.
That kind of earlier diagnosis can make an enormous difference.
For one, it gives families more time to plan and prepare for the financial and caregiving burdens that come with Alzheimer’s. Long-term care services can cost $72,800 to $115,000 annually. Many family members of patients with Alzheimer’s and other dementias become caregivers themselves, collectively providing more than 19 billion hours of unpaid care worth over $446 billion.
Alzheimer’s damages the connections between brain cells. Once those neurons are lost, they can’t be repaired or regenerated. Alzheimer’s treatments therefore generally focus on preventing damage and slowing the disease’s progression. And after a certain point, patients simply aren’t eligible for treatment anymore.
Yet for patients to benefit from recent diagnostic advances, Medicare needs to cover them.
Policymakers shouldn’t stop there, though. As Alzheimer’s science continues to advance, Medicare needs to keep pace by removing unnecessary barriers and ensuring that patients can actually access the new diagnostics and treatments that researchers develop.
We increasingly have the tools to change the trajectory of early-stage Alzheimer’s. But first, we must ensure that patients can access those tools in time. Doing so would create wide ripple effects of positive impact on millions of individuals and families facing this staggering diagnosis.
Kenneth E. Thorpe, PhD, is the Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Health Policy at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University and the honorary Chair of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease. This piece originally ran in DCJournal.com.
Small businesses are the engine of America’s economic and technological future, and the Trump administration knows it. Administration officials have repeatedly cited startup formation and entrepreneurship as key to addressing the nation’s most urgent policy challenges, from AI advancement and scientific leadership to job creation and reindustrialization.
To aid startup growth, administration officials have worked to expand government-backed financing for small firms, attract more private capital to startups, and help entrepreneurs commercialize emerging technologies and leverage domestic manufacturing.
Still, one of the most important ways to strengthen America’s startup ecosystem requires no new federal initiatives or additional funding at all. It simply requires policymakers to preserve a longstanding legal framework that has fueled American entrepreneurship for more than four decades.
Congress passed the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 to create a more effective pathway for federally funded research to become new technologies, products, and businesses — by letting universities, nonprofit research institutions, small businesses, and federal laboratories keep the patent rights to inventions they developed with federal support. That created incentives for universities to license those discoveries to small companies, which could then use the patents to attract capital and invest in further development.
Four and a half decades later, the Bayh-Dole framework remains indispensable to American small business growth.
New research shows that from 2021 through 2025, universities, hospitals, and nonprofit research institutes averaged more than 19,000 income-generating licenses each year — approximately twice the annual average from the early 2000s. Roughly 70% of university licensing agreements are with startups and small companies.
In many cases, those licensing agreements give rise to entirely new companies. Since 2001, the Bayh-Dole system has helped launch more than 19,000 startups.
As these businesses grow, they hire workers, do business with other local companies, and strengthen their regional economies. Since 1996, the Bayh-Dole system has contributed up to $1.7 trillion to U.S. GDP and supported up to 7.6 million years’ worth of jobs for Americans.
Unfortunately, in recent years, the Bayh-Dole system has faced growing uncertainty.
Some policymakers are debating changes that could reduce startups’ access to innovative, federally funded research. One proposed rule change would allow the government to cancel long-term research funding on a political whim. Meanwhile, one agency adopted guidelines that make industry licenses less secure by requiring ongoing product-access plans that can be used to revoke licenses even after products have been developed, which directly violates Bayh-Dole.
That uncertainty could have devastating consequences for startups and America’s innovation ecosystem. Startups often build their businesses around a single unproven invention, and they have fewer resources than larger companies to absorb the risks of developing a new product and bringing it to market.
If small companies cannot reliably protect their patent rights, it could become much harder for them to raise the investment needed to continue researching, testing, and manufacturing new technologies.
Instead of altering the Bayh-Dole system, policymakers must preserve it. Protecting this framework will help ensure that startups can continue turning federally supported discoveries into new companies, jobs, and technologies that strengthen American competitiveness.
I’ve been a pharmacist for more than 50 years. In that time, I’ve witnessed staggering medical advances. Patients now have access — at least in theory — to lifesaving medicines that seemed like science fiction just a decade or two ago.
But in practice, tens of millions of Americans struggle to obtain those drugs. In recent years, I’ve watched more and more patients approach the pharmacy counter, look at the required co-pay on the screen with horror, and glumly walk away without their prescribed treatments.
These patients have insurance. But all too often they can’t afford the out-of-pocket costs that remain after coverage kicks in.
The crisis stems, in large part, from the fact that big insurers like UnitedHealth, Cigna, and Humana don’t merely process claims, anymore. Their parent companies control physicians’ practices and hospitals. They also own pharmacies and operate pharmacy benefit managers — the middlemen that determine which drugs patients can access and what they pay for them.
Today, just three PBMs (pharmacy benefit manager) control prescription drug access for roughly 80% of Americans. In virtually any other industry, that level of concentration would raise serious concerns about competition. Yet these vertically integrated conglomerates have warped the healthcare system to maximize their own profits — and gouge patients — every step of the way.
PBMs typically base patients’ out-of-pocket costs on drugs’ much higher “list” prices, rather than the discounted prices negotiated behind the scenes. Those inflated list prices only exist on paper, yet they justify higher co-pays while also generating larger rebates for PBMs and more profit for the companies that own them. In some cases, PBMs collect more from patients via co-pays or co-insurance than they actually reimburse pharmacies for dispensing a drug.
PBMs also profit by making it harder for patients to access the medicines their providers prescribe. One of their most common tactics is prior authorization. Providers must justify prescriptions they have already determined are appropriate and wait for the insurer’s approval before patients can begin treatment. The process can delay care for days, weeks, or even months. Faced with those hurdles, up to eight in 10 patients forgo treatment altogether.
Then there’s “step therapy”, sometimes called “fail first”. Patients must first try one or more older, less expensive medicines before gaining access to the treatment their provider originally recommended. That may reduce short-term costs for insurers, but it can also delay effective care and, in some cases, seriously harm patients.
Together these, and other, barriers contribute to unmanaged chronic disease, avoidable hospitalizations, and more than 100,000 preventable deaths every year.
Fortunately, Washington is beginning to crack down. The Federal Trade Commission has sued the nation’s three largest PBMs over practices that inflate drug prices. The Department of Labor recently proposed a rule that’d require PBMs to better disclose the fees and compensation they receive. And earlier this year, Congress passed legislation requiring PBMs to increase transparency and pass through more of the discounts they receive to employers.
It’s a great start — and a much more viable way to decrease Americans’ pharmacy bills than one of the other ideas frequently tossed around Capitol Hill. Some lawmakers want to mimic other nations’ price controls on prescription drugs. But artificially lowering what biotech companies charge for medicines would deter research investments — meaning that the pharmacists of the future will have fewer lifesaving drugs to dispense to patients.
Until policymakers decisively confront PBMs, Americans will continue to pay more, get less of the care they need, and be at risk of worse health.
Salvatore J. (Sal) Giorgianni, Jr, PharmD, CMHE is vice-president and cofounder of Healthy Men, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing the health of boys, men and their families. He is chair-emeritus and cofounder of the American Public Health Association Caucus On Men’s Health. This piece originally appeared in Issues & Insights.
A voter casts a ballot during the presidential primary election on Super Tuesday in Oakland. Photo: Andrew Reed/EdSource
PRO: Teachers’ union leader says Prop. 3 would help lock in hard-won resources for student well-being
By Gloria Martinez, EdSource.org – republished with permission
When I was a special education teacher, I learned that one of the cruelest questions you can ask an underfunded school is: What can you afford to go without?
Before California voters passed Proposition 30 in 2012, this was not a hypothetical question. I saw firsthand how budget constraints affected students’ daily lives, especially in less affluent communities where resources were already stretched thin. Some schools lacked the counselors, school psychologists and social workers needed to recognize when a child was struggling. Teachers did what they could, but in classrooms of 30 or more students, we could not replace these trained professionals or meet every child’s needs alone.
By raising taxes on California’s highest earners (currently, couples earning more than $742,000), Proposition 30 generated additional revenue for public schools and higher education. In the years that followed, teachers across the state used collective bargaining to advocate for improvements that directly affected students and school communities: smaller class sizes, art and music programs, and mental health professionals who helped schools better support students’ overall well-being.
In Los Angeles, those resources also helped create conditions for educators to pursue further gains through common-good bargaining, including community schools, the Black Student Achievement Plan, and additional staffing. These were more than budget line items. They meant more readily available support for students, expanded opportunities for children from low-income backgrounds and from immigrant communities and communities of color, and greater capacity for schools to intervene when students and their families needed help.
Today, as voters consider Proposition 3, which would make these existing tax rates permanent for California’s highest-income earners, we must remember what it took to build that stronger foundation and what we stand to lose if it erodes.
If the tax rates expire in 2031, California would give its wealthiest households a massive tax cut and forgo an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state revenue. This financial pitfall will make it harder for school districts to sustain the programs and staffing students rely on, including mental health and student support services. Counselors, school psychologists and social workers — positions we worked to expand in our schools — could be at risk.
“If the tax rates expire in 2031, California would give its wealthiest households a massive tax cut and forgo an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state revenue.“
Protecting that investment is especially urgent as students face increasingly complex mental health challenges. For young people experiencing depression, anxiety or suicidal thoughts, school-based mental health services reach more than twice as many as primary care or child welfare services. For many students, school may be the most accessible place to find help.
Students also bring fears into school that originate far beyond campus. Immigration raids across California have exacerbated students’ anxieties about family separation, fears for parents’ safety, and difficulty concentrating in class. In moments like these, psychiatric social workers have provided students with weekly check-ins, psychological counseling and information about legal support services. They have also facilitated community circles where students can discuss unfolding events and how those events affect them.
If schools lose these professionals, students and families will have fewer places to turn for help. Families with the means to do so may be able to pay for private counseling, but families without those means can lose access to critical support altogether.
The gains made possible by Proposition 30 demonstrate what sustained public investment can achieve. Without continued funding that would come from Proposition 3, it’s hard to see how schools can maintain those hard-won gains, preserve mental health services and build the capacity they need to respond to students’ changing needs.
Years from now, our students will have to live with the consequences of the choices we make during this election. Children need more than academic instruction to thrive. They need the stability and support that allow them to recover from setbacks, develop confidence and imagine a future beyond their immediate challenges.
Proposition 3 will not magically fix California’s schools. But without this revenue, schools will struggle to maintain the staffing and programs our students deserve. The question we must ask is not simply what California can afford to fund, but what we are willing to risk going without.
Voters at a polling place. Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
CON: Taxpayers leader says California doesn’t need another forever tax
As statewide student enrollment declines
By Robert Gutierrez, EdSource.org – republished with permission
Proposition 3 asks voters to approve a massive tax increase that would not take effect until 2031, when California’s finances may look completely different from how they do today. Voters should reject Proposition 3 and keep their options open.
In 2031, there will be a new president in the Oval Office, a new governor, and a different political landscape in California — especially if voters approve Proposition 40 to impose a wealth tax that could prompt an exodus of the taxpayers targeted by Proposition 3.
The state also will have significantly fewer students in our public schools. The Department of Finance projects a decline of 710,500 students from 2026 through 2036, and by the midpoint of this decline, we undoubtedly will see some major changes in the education structure.
This is only the beginning of the list of unknowns. Other questions include:
Will Californians still be paying billions of dollars per year for a nonfunctioning “high-speed” railroad system in 2031, rather than prioritizing schools for that spending?
Will taxpayers still be paying for ineffective programs that haven’t solved homelessness?
Will startups launch in California, or take their jobs and economic benefits to states with more competitive tax rates?
In short, it makes no sense to amend the state constitution to commit to a tax increase now, five years in advance, when we have no idea what condition the state will be in when the tax would take effect.
What difference could five years make?
California’s finances can change substantially in a short period. Total state revenue for the current fiscal year is projected to be $21.5 billion higher than the amount collected five years earlier. The Department of Finance also recently reported that general fund revenue was running $5.5 billion above the projection used to draft the 2026-27 budget just six months earlier. This means the education funding guarantee will go up, too.
“It makes no sense to amend the state constitution to commit to a tax increase now, five years in advance, when we have no idea what condition the state will be in when the tax would take effect.“
Timing is only one of the problems. While Proposition 3 is marketed as a “tax extension” that would only affect high-income residents, the truth is that it’s a major tax increase that would hit millions of small businesses as well as high-income individuals. The result: California’s affordability crisis gets worse.
The small-business aspect of Proposition 3 hasn’t received enough attention. California’s tax structure does not neatly separate business income from personal income, and many small businesses operate as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or S corporations that report business earnings on personal income tax returns.
This means the higher tax rates imposed by Proposition 3 would increase taxes on many small businesses, ultimately leading to higher prices for customers, fewer job opportunities for workers, or both.
The Public Policy Institute of California reported in February that sole proprietorships accounted for more than 3 million California businesses in 2023. But the number of those businesses whose owners would be impacted by Proposition 3 depends on their taxable income.
To the extent that Proposition 3 would hit high-income earners, it would make California more reliant on the most volatile source of revenue, while simultaneously making it even more volatile by giving high-income residents a new incentive to leave the state.
California already imposes the nation’s highest personal income taxes and would have a top personal income tax rate of 10.3% on income over $1 million without Proposition 3. The state also imposes a 1.3% State Disability Insurance tax on all income from salaries and wages, bringing the top tax rate to 11.6% on those forms of income, without Proposition 3.
As for the issue of an “extension” versus an “increase,” the fact is clear: If Proposition 3 is approved, Californians will pay $5 billion to $15 billion a year more in state income tax than if the initiative is defeated (according to estimates by the Legislative Analyst’s Office). That’s an increase — and a very large one, at that.
Finally, the measure would continue the trend in which “temporary” taxes in California never seem to go away. As the proponents of Proposition 40 are discovering, voters are extremely distrustful of taxes described as temporary. Why? In large part because of Proposition 3 and its predecessor, Proposition 55 of 2016, asking voters to renew a tax originally described as a temporary charge to cover an emergency.
The ballot argument for the original initiative, Proposition 30 of 2012, said the taxes “are temporary, balanced and necessary to protect schools and safety” — one of the argument’s five mentions of the allegedly temporary nature.
With revenue arriving above projections and the state spending billions on questionable programs without proper controls or a review of effectiveness, it can no longer be said that California has a fiscal emergency.
The voters should give much-needed relief to small businesses and their customers, avoid making fiscal decisions prematurely, and let the “emergency tax” expire on schedule. Vote NO on Proposition 3.
Robert Gutierrez is president of the California Taxpayers Association, which is celebrating its 100th year of serving as the state’s largest and oldest association representing taxpayers in this state.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view.
I live in Walnut Creek, and I’m voting for Jeff Frese for Congress in District 10. I recently posted on Nextdoor to ask my neighbors to give Frese a look before they fill out their ballots.
Mark DeSaulnier has been in Congress for twelve years. In that time, two of his bills became law. One named a post office. The other moved a park boundary. Twelve years is long enough to judge someone’s work, and that is the work.
Jeff Frese lives in Moraga. He isn’t a career politician, and the first thing on his list is one every parent in this county can get behind: no federal income tax on public school teachers. The people we trust with our kids all day shouldn’t need a second job to live in the towns where they teach.
Frese has challenged DeSaulnier to a debate. DeSaulnier won’t debate him. When you’ve never had to earn the vote, you never have to show up.
One party has held every statewide office in California since 2011. We pay the highest gas prices in the country. More people are leaving this state than any other, and the U-Haul one-way exodus is the receipt. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result hasn’t worked.
I’m not asking anyone to change parties. I’m asking them to consider hiring someone who will actually show up and do the job. Someone who will prioritize the interests of his constituents over his self-interest or his allegiance to any political party. Someone who is determined to act and to create a brighter future for our children and grandchildren. Talk is cheap. The time to act is now.
Ballots are due Tuesday, November 3. I’m voting for Jeff Frese, and I hope you’ll join me. For more information visit https://freseforcongress.com.
With “sound judgment, respectful leadership and consistent follow-through”
By Sandra White, Candidate for Antioch City Council, District 4
For 16 years, Antioch has been my home. Like many of my neighbors, I want to see our city thrive, a place where families feel safe, businesses succeed, young people have opportunities, and residents have confidence in their local government.
I am running for City Council because I believe we can do more to turn those shared hopes into results. We need leadership that is proactive not reactive. Leadership that focuses primarily on what the people of Antioch need and take action.
My commitment to Antioch began long before this campaign. Through my service with the Rotary Club of Antioch, the Crime Prevention Commission, local education organizations, and youth initiatives, I have worked alongside residents who give their time and energy to strengthen our community. Those experiences have shown me what is possible when people work together. They have also reinforced the importance of city leadership that listens, follows through, and treats residents with respect.
As a Vice President of Human Resources, I work through difficult decisions, evaluate competing needs, and help people resolve problems. My background in counseling psychology informs how I listen and approach conflict. I would bring those same skills to the City Council: asking thoughtful questions, reviewing the facts, considering financial consequences, and holding myself accountable for results.
A Safer Antioch Starts with Leadership
Public safety must be a promise our city delivers on every day. Every Antioch resident deserves to feel safe at home, walk through a park without fear, not have their neighborhood taking over by side shows and shop at local businesses with confidence. I will prioritize adequate police staffing, responsive emergency services, rigorous training, and accountability that builds public trust. I will also champion crime prevention through youth programs, better street lighting, well-maintained public spaces, and behavioral health professionals who can respond when appropriate. My commitment is clear: safer neighborhoods, stronger community trust, and measurable results.
Local Business Growth and Opportunity
We also need a stronger local economy. Residents regularly ask why storefronts remain empty and why they must leave Antioch for shopping, dining, and entertainment. City Hall must understand the barriers facing businesses and work to address them. Our planning decisions should consider appropriate housing needs alongside jobs, traffic, infrastructure, public services, and the commercial activity that helps fund them.
Pathways to Housing and Recovery
Addressing homelessness requires compassion, clear expectations, and sustained coordination. I support a treatment-first approach that connects people with mental health care, substance use treatment, and pathways toward stability. Residents also deserve safe, accessible sidewalks, parks, and public spaces. We need to measure whether our efforts are helping people and improving conditions, not just implementing an expensive short-term fix.
These priorities require responsible financial decisions. Every dollar the city spends should serve a clear purpose. I will ask what proposals cost, how we will pay for them, and how residents will know whether they are working.
Above all, I want residents to feel heard. People should be able to ask questions, express disagreement, and participate in city government without being dismissed or intimidated. Public service requires the humility to listen, acknowledge mistakes, and correct courses.
I am running because I care about Antioch’s future and am prepared to do the work that serving this community requires.
My commitment is to bring preparation, sound judgment, respectful leadership and consistent follow-through to District 4. Together, we can build a stronger, safer Antioch.
To learn more and to offer your support, please visit my website at www.sandragwhite.com.
Please vote for Joy Motts for the District 1 Antioch City Council seat. She has the experience, cares about Antioch, and I believe she is the better candidate versus the current incumbent.
The current incumbent asks to be recycled back to that District seat but has not served the public as she has has a responsibility to do. As an elected council member she has really failed to abide by some critical required actions, instead has ignored such and been silent when pressed to carry them out.
During her past six years on the City Council she has, failed to work for and enforce our serious need for the General Plan’s required full complement of police manpower (Sections 3 and 8 dictated 1.2 per thousand sworn officers per thousand residents), and failing to provide a safer and less dangerous Antioch.
We do not need to recycle her back in! We need Joy Motts to be the replacement, which she will work to correct if elected.
Our sworn police manpower is 85 (a deficit of 60 sworn officers in accordance with our General Plan). it should be about 145 sworn officers, proof that she has ignored and therefore continues to endanger our community during her tenure! She needs to be shown the exit door, via instead voting for Joy Motts.
As 50-plus years (about 75,000 hours) of my direct experience in public safety, I have personally brought this to the full Council for years and the incumbents Walker, Wilson and others have instead voted in projects that have further created the public safety issues we have been put under! No way Jose, do not recycle Tamisha and Monica just to get the same ole, same ole!
Also, as a past sworn Officer/investigator/Inspector/Supervisor/Police Trainer, etc., I know what needs to be done! First….do not vote for them just to be recycled. Joy Motts should be voted for in District 1.
For the Antioch City Council The Herald endorses Joy Motts in District 1 and Sandra White in District 4. Sources: Campaign photos.
Torres-Walker has accomplished much of her agenda to “reimagine Antioch”, 14 years for Wilson is more than enough, they’ve worn out their welcomeand it’s time for renewed and new leadership.
By Allen D. Payton
After much thought, review and consideration about this year’s races for the Antioch City Council, I have decided to endorse Joy Motts in District 1 and Sandra White in District 4. While that may not be much of a surprise to anyone based on my past support for each of them and opposition and challenges to the incumbents, Councilwomen Tamisha Torres-Walker in District 1 and Monica Wilson in District 4, the bottom line is they’ve each had more than enough time to accomplish what they set out to. Yet, the challenge has been all the problems they helped create and the irresponsible decisions they’ve made during that time which are reasons enough to support pretty much anyone else who might have run this year.
About the two incumbents, stealing from the name of the 1966 Clint Eastwood movie of the same name, I offer The Good, The Bad and The Ugly of their time on the Council:
The Good
Torres-Walker has served for six years, since she was elected during the height of the Black Lives Matter movement, and the defund police sentiment amongst some at the height of the COVID pandemic in 2020. She has accomplished much of what she intended in her efforts to “reimagine Antioch”. While she started out against the police Torres-Walker ended up supporting the hiring of additional police and even a police department substation in the Sycamore neighborhood, which is still the City’s highest crime area. Plus, she has pushed for and has been able to accomplish several proposals regarding police reform, including the formation of the Antioch Police Oversight Commission, affordable housing measures and efforts to secure state and federal grant funds, such as the $2 million California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) Grant.
Wilson, on the other hand, has little to show for her 14 years on the council as far as proposing ideas that were approved and implemented and has primarily been a third, fourth or fifth vote for the ideas of other council members. She does get credit for the formation of the City’s crisis response team – which I’d say is her greatest accomplishment. But she unfortunately and successfully proposed to name it after someone who would not have been helped by the team, Angelo Quinto.
I will also give them both credit for their efforts to address homelessness, which has benefited some of the unhoused residents in Antioch, mainly using federal COVID-relief funds. But the problem remains and has actually grown during their time in office.
The Bad
Natural Gas Pipeline Shut Down & Unnecessary Gas and Oil Drilling Moratorium
Wilson’s other accomplishments includes the council majority’s foolish shutdown of the natural gas pipeline that runs beneath the city, which Torres-Walker also voted for and actually resulted in even more greenhouse gas emissions, and an unnecessary moratorium on drilling for oil and gas in Antioch, even though the only person who has the rights to drill had no plans to do so nor was informed of the proposal even after it was placed on a council agenda for a vote. Plus, the council’s action can’t prevent him from exercising his rights, so, if he wants to, he can still drill. That was all done to grandstand in an effort to please out-of-town environmental groups to boost her unsuccessful efforts running for County Supervisor and later, State Assembly. It has also resulted in a lawsuit against the City by the pipeline owner. (See related articles here, here and here)
Overreaction to Text Scandal, Civil Rights Violations by Antioch Police Officers
Wilson served on the Council during the time the racist and offensive texts were being sent be a few Antioch Police officers and received by many more on their personal cell phones, out of reach of both department and city leadership, and she and Torres-Walker served during the time of their revelation and the resulting scandal caused by that and the civil rights violations against Antioch residents and others by our city’s officers. While I believe it was good that two Black women were on the Council during that time to help address a response to the situation, Torres-Walker overreacted by calling for the resignation of all officers named, even those who merely received the texts. That’s being guilty by association and interfering in the process instead of allowing the investigations by the Contra Costa DA’s Office, FBI and California Department of Justice to be completed, first. (See related article)
Turnover in City Leadership Positions & Staff Vacancies – Grand Jury Report
Their decision-making when it came tohiring City leaders has been less than stellar and in fact was the subject of A Report of The 2023 – 2024 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury, number2405, issued June 12, 2024. In that report it outlines three “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch” including, 1. Turnover in city leadership (six permanent or acting City Managers since 2013) which has resulted in an average tenure for Antioch City Managers that is less than half the state average (less than two years vs. 4.5-year average); 2. A city employee vacancy rate that is 4-times the national average (21.6% vs. 5.3%); and 3. Possible Brown Act violations by the Mayor and certain City Council members, as outlined in a letter to Antioch’s Acting City Manager from the Contra Costa District Attorney. (See below)
Wilson was first elected in 2012. Torres-Walker was elected in 2020.
Following Ron Bernal’s announcement he would retire at the end of December 2021, Cornelius “Con” Johnson was hired as Interim City Manager on Nov. 9, 2021, on 3-2 vote with Wilson and Torres-Walker voting in favor.
Then, as previously reported, with only two weeks before that year’s election, during their meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2022, the Antioch City Council on a 3-2 vote, with Wilson and Torres-Walker in the majority, appointed Interim City Manager Cornelius “Con” Johnson as the permanent city manager for another 22 months.
Community Development Director Forrest Ebbs then served as Acting City Manager from March 17 until June 13, 2023, and remained as Community Development Director until July 14, when he left to take another position in a different city.
Economic Development Director Kwame Reed was then appointed Acting City Manager on June 13, 2023, and served in the position until Oct. 2024.
Parks and Recreation Director Brad Helfenberger was then appointed as Interim Assistant City Manager by Reed on June 26, 2023. Senior Planner Kevin Scudero was appointed as Acting Community Development Director, around the same time.
City Manager Bessie M. Scott was hired on August 27, 2024, on another 3-2 vote, with Torres-Walker and Wilson voting in favor and filled the position on Oct. 7th, less than a month before that year’s election when a new mayor and two new council members were elected.
Reed was then promoted to Assistant City Manager by Scott on Jan. 23, 2025, and served in that position until he left for a job with the County Clerk-Recorder’s Office on March 21st.
On April 1, 2025, Helfenberger was again appointed Acting Assistant City Manager, Scott Buenting was named Public Works Director/City Engineer after serving in an acting role for 2.5 years; David Storer was appointed Interim Director of the Community & Economic Development Department, and Shahad Wright was appointed the Acting Parks and Recreation Director. (See related article)
As of May 13, 2025, Antioch was left without an Assistant City Manager or Economic Development Director, and an Acting Police Chief, Acting City Attorney, Acting Community Development Director and Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer. (See related article)
Then Helfenberger was appointed to be the City’s Director of Information Systems effective October 20, 2025, and the Assistant City Manager position has remained vacant since. Interim Director of the Department of Public Safety and Community Resources Monserrat Cabral was appointed Director that same day. Also, that same day, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation Shahad Wright was appointed Director of the Recreation Department. (See related article)
A new Community & Economic Development Director started on Oct. 6, 2025, But was gone by March 3, 2026.
Storer again appointed Interim Community & Economic Development Director but then was let go in May 2026 after Scott was placed on leave and Principal Planning Kevin Scudero was appointed Acting Community & Economic Development Director.
Scott was placed on paid leave May 5, 2026, on a 4-0 vote with Torres-Walker voting to abstain and Human Resources Director Ana Cortez was appointed Acting City Manager effective the next day, also on a 4-0 vote, and was to remain in the position until June 30, 2027. Another person in the HR Dept was appointed the Acting HR Director. The Council also voted not to fill the assistant city manager’s position until sometime in 2027.
However, during their Oct. 7th meeting the Council decided to hire an interim city manager while they search for someone to fill the role permanently.
So, currently, the City has an acting city manager, no assistant city manager and an acting director of Community and Economic Development. But the council did vote in September to reestablish a separate Economic Development Department and create the director position, again, and begin the search process to fill it.
Repeated Deficits, Poor Spending Decisions
The decisions and votes of both councilwomen have helped create the annual deficits the City continues to face. Their repeated votes for all the cannabis businesses, while bringing in one-time funds for the City and local non-profit organizations, have actually hurt the City’s reputation and economic development efforts, and created more calls for service to the police.
They both also voted to shut down the Rivertown Resource Center in the former police station on W. 10th Street, displacing 16 non-profit organizations, for a new department, which the Council on a 3-2 vote agreed to spend $14 million for design and construction of a new, two story building in its place. Later, the Council voted to purchase the two-story former PG&E building on W. 2nd Street at a cost of $1.83 million to house the new department, instead. Yet, the City has not been able to occupy it because the elevator was not compliant with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The W. 10th Street building was going to be sold to the Fire District and has sat vacant, gathering dust and
Although the Council cut spending in the past two budget cycles, the City is still facing an $11.2 million deficit in Fiscal Year 2027-28 even after a $5 million transfer into the General Fund from the Budget Stabilization Fund. (See related articles here, here and here)
Both Voted to Name Crisis Response Team for Angelo Quinto, Give His Family $7.5 Million Despite No Knee to Neck, Wrongdoing by Officers
Both Wilson and Torres-Walker voted to name the City’s crisis response team after Angelo Quinto, a clear slap in the face to the Antioch Police officers who saved his family from him attacking them. It was the family who called the police in the first place. It’s also in spite of the fact the DA cleared Antioch Officers of any wrongdoing, said there had been no knee to his neck by the officers, and Quinto died three days later in the hospital while not in police custody, in spite of the false reports by Bay Area and national media. (See related articles here and here)
The DA reported, “Antioch Police officers engaged with Quinto in a manner that was lawful and objectively reasonable under the circumstances” and “an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea” and “accounts of what transpired in the bedroom are consistent among all witnesses in that no police officer applied pressure to Quinto’s neck.”
Also, the Coroner’s autopsy determined Quinto died of drug intoxication, psychiatric conditions, physical exertion and cardiac arrest and an independent toxicology report found presence of Fentanyl in Quinto’s blood – in addition to Modafinil and Levetiracetam.
“I want to say to the Quinto family, you lost your son, that’s how we got here,” Torres-Walker said. “Your loss has spurred some change, but it didn’t have to happen.”
Both councilwomen voted to create an unnecessary, new City department with a new director, by taking five existing services from other City departments, adding two new services that could have been handled by the police department, and gave it the confusing name, “Department of Public Safety and Community Resources” even though it had nothing to do with police or fire services. The department name was Torres-Walker’s brainchild, who tried to argue, “public safety is a lot more than policing. It’s about quality of life, environmental justice, youth services, housing. Public safety is about economic dignity, access to jobs, clean water, clean air.” It was supposed to be located in the W. 10th Street building.
The department was finally renamed this year to simply, the Community Services Department. But it’s still not needed and the responsibilities can be divided among other City departments to save money which is sorely needed. (See related articles here, here and here)
Voted to Rezone 10 Commercial Properties to Allow Low-Income Apartments
Torres-Walker’s focus has been too much on low-income housing, and her and Wilson’s votes to rezone 10 commercial parcels throughout the city to allow for extremely-low, very-low and low-income apartment units, then later claiming they thought they were voting for mixed use – which was only one of the three options – are unacceptable. Especially, when the state did not require it and worse, one of those projects currently under construction is near the golf course where the residents in the nearby neighborhoods rose up over 20 years ago and successfully defeated a proposed apartment complex across the street. (See related articles here, here and here)
Antioch has more than enough affordable housing and needs upscale housing in its mix, like Brentwood has, to attract seniors and residents with higher incomes who will spend their money in town, shop in our stores and dine in our restaurants, and hopefully, bring their businesses to town to employ our commuting residents. They don’t seem to get that, even though it’s been in the City’s plans for 30 years. We need council members who will support that type of housing instead and I have no doubt both Motts and White will.
Both Voted to Bypass City Manager, Hire Police Chief Directly
During the Council meeting on August 22, 2023, with Torres-Walker and Wilson voting in favor, the Council twice voted 3-2 to directly hire the police chief but delayed implementation of the ordinance for 90 days so the acting city manager could complete the process of hiring an interim chief. Torres-Walker proposed a time limit of possibly one year before the authority would revert back to the city manager which was supported by Wilson. But that wasn’t part of the approved motions.
Both Voted for 18.45% Pay Raise
During their current term, both councilwomen voted to give themselves an 18.45% pay raise during the Council meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 2024. As previously reported, the council approved on a 4-1 vote, with Ogorchock opposing, an 18.45% pay raise or $296, from $1,604 to $1,900 per month, for a total of $22,800 per year, which went into effect after that year’s election. It benefited the two councilwomen, and the new mayor and council members.
Neither Called Out Mayor’s Misbehavior
Plus, both incumbents, while calling out the wrong actions and behavior of Antioch police officers, kept their mouths shut when it came to calling out and challenging Hernandez-Thorpe’s DUI and later sexual harassment of two female employees who worked for him. Motts called for the mayor’s resignation. Instead, when their fellow councilmembers, Ogorchock and Mike Barbanica also called for Hernandez-Thorpe’s resignation, Wilson called it, “racially divisive grandstanding,” even though the County Board of Supervisors voted to settle with the two women for $350,000. (See related articles here, here and here)
Torres-Walker Helped Take Control of Juneteenth Celebration Away from Young African American Woman & Her Committee
As previously reported, in 2022, with a little over two months before the planned and promoted annual Antioch Juneteenth Celebration, Mayor Thorpe, Torres-Walker and Interim City Manager Con Johnson decided to take the event from Claryssa Wilson, the young African-American college student who had organized it for the previous two years and her committee of 11 other African-American Antioch residents, and instead, had the City organize and operate it.
THE UGLY
Corruption: DA Letter on Secret Meetings at Mayor’s House Violating State Open Meeting Law
Some of their actions and decisions have just been plain corrupt.
They were both called out by the District Attorney for holding private meetings at former Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe’s home at which they discussed City business in clear violation of the state’s Brown Act open meeting law. It was later shared by a former friend of the mayor who was also there that they discussed redistricting and moving fellow Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock out of her district and into Wilson’s, which they all three did later in live time during a council meeting.
In a letter from Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton she wrote, “there is evidence that Mayor Thorpe and Councilmembers Torres Walker and Wilson met at Mayor Thorpe’s home in 2022 and held discussions. Furthermore, it appears that the discussions may have included an agreement to take action on matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the council. As defined by Government Code section 54952.6, ‘action taken’ means a collective decision, or even a commitment or promise to make a decision, on a matter concerning the city. Our investigation leads us to believe that Mayor Thorpe and Councilmembers Torres Walker and Wilson did meet and may have developed a collective occurrence absent a public forum. Any similar meeting on matters concerning the city could subject council members to criminal liability.”
In addition, the mayor’s former friend said the meetings occurred and she attended them. Finally, Torres-Walker didn’t deny and Thorpe admitted to participating in the private meetings. (See related article)
More Corruption: Gerrymandered Council District Boundaries to Move Ogorchock into Wilson’s District
Both Torres-Walker and Wilson helped redraw then voted for the new council district boundaries in 2022 to gerrymander Ogorchock out of her district, moving her neighborhood into District 4, forcing the District 3 councilwoman to run for re-election against Wilson.
That’s in spite of two almost identical maps drawn by members of the public having been submitted during the open process in which the Council encouraged the public to draw and submit proposed maps, that would have kept each of the councilmembers in their districts and used major city streets as the boundary lines. (See related article)
While she has mellowed some since first being elected in 2020, Torres-Walker’s rhetoric continues to be radical, has even been racist at times, filled with emotion and anger and even a false allegation of murder by Antioch Police officers. Plus, she disrespects our flag and country by not participating in the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of Council meetings. She merely stands there facing the flag with her hands behind her back. That’s unacceptable for an elected official who took the oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States…against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
During her current term, after being re-elected by just four votes in 2022, Torres-Walker has said some comments that raised eyebrows and had people shaking their heads. One statement was rather revealing when she stated, “I’m a governmental radically deconstructionist,” during the Council meeting on August 22, 2023. But that same night Torres-Walker also falsely and irresponsibly accused Antioch Police officers of murder when she stated, “We’ve been going through a public process for the past 18 months since we found out Angelo Quinto was murdered in his family’s house.”
Said, “City as a Whole” Has a “Deeply Entrenched Racist Culture”,
In a post on her official Facebook page on Thursday, May 18, 2023, Torres-Walker wrote, “My position on this is…an expression of my commitment to not ignore the deeply entrenched racist culture within the Antioch Police Department and the City as a whole.”
Said Fellow Councilwoman Ogorchock Had “White Privilege Fits” and “White Fragility”
During the council meeting on Friday, May 19th, 2023, Torres-Walker said about her council colleague, “last year when Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock had her white privilege fits right here, in this public space, I didn’t say a word. I’m growing tired and I thank God that I have patience because I have seen some growth. But white fragility doesn’t move me at all.” (See related article)
Then, during the most recent regular Council meeting on Oct. 14, 2026, when discussing the proposed “Ethical Investing” policy with “Socially Responsible and Ethical Investment Exclusions” proposed by a small group of activists after meeting with the city treasurer, Torres-Walker took swipes at our nation and its allies.
She also said, “we exist within a genocidal government that invests in the military industrial complex…that also sells weapons to other genocidal governments. It is a conundrum because we’re existing right now on stolen, colonized land.” (See related article)
Torres-Walker Disrespects Our Nation and Flag
At the beginning of Council meetings during the Pledge of Allegiance, instead of placing her hand over her heart and reciting the Pledge, Torres-Walker disrespects the nation and the flag it represents by merely standing there with her hands behind her back. Yet, she’ll post small “Pride” flags on the dais in front of her – in direct violation of the City Flag Policy – and wear a Palestinian keffiyeh neck scarf during council meetings.
Torres-Walker’s Own Run-Ins With the Law, Forced to Resign from Council Committee – Refuses to Release Police Body Cam Footage
Torres-Walker has had her own run-ins with police from her first months in office. That’s when her sons were pulled over for illegally riding dirt bikes on city streets, and she came to their defense but in doing so accused the two officers of wrongdoing and they claim she said, “I’ll have your (expletive) badge. Do you know who I am?” They in turn sued her.
She demanded an outside investigator which cost the City $45,000 and the report showed all her claims were “unfounded” or “not sustained”. There were two outside investigations with the second into Torres-Walker at the request of the Antioch Police Officers Association. Then-City Manager Ron Bernal both contracted for and stopped the second one. (See related articles here and here)
Then in October of 2021, when confronted by police at her home about noise complaints including dirt bikes riding in the street, loud music and five or six gunshots, Torres-Walker was arrested for interfering with police who were trying to question another woman there. It was just one of eight incidents at her home that resulted in 11 calls for police service. She claimed police were targeting her family, which they denied.
Under pressure from her fellow council members, a few days later, she stepped down as Chair of the Council’s Antioch Police Oversight Committee. But before she did, Torres-Walker claimed, “negative and retaliatory behaviors from APD.”
The councilwoman was charged with a misdemeanor for resisting, obstructing, delaying of a Peace Officer or EMT.
Finally, in September 2022, the DA dropped the charges against the councilwoman. That followed a contributed $500 contribution by Torres-Walker to Becton’s reelection campaign. Becton said she later returned the contribution.
Multiple efforts were made to request APD to release the officer’s body camera video footage, and both of her opponents in the 2022 election, including Motts, called for it, as well. But neither Torres-Walker nor the police department will release the footage so the public can see, hear and know what occurred in front of her house that night, claiming it’s “privileged”. That’s not right. They shouldn’t be protecting a sitting council member, and she should be more transparent with the public, even if it’s embarrassing and costs her politically.
Arrogance in Office: Both Refuse to Answer Questions, Respond to Phone Calls, Texts, Emails
Another pet peeve for me is, both have demonstrated arrogance in office as only once in the past several years has either of them responded to my emails, texts and phone calls, which is a sign they don’t think they have to answer questions posed to them by the media to inform the public and don’t like being challenged. Most of the time they were included in group emails to all council members and given the opportunity to comment about a matter.
While I see and speak to her periodically in the community and Wilson and I are cordial with each other, they rarely if ever communicate with me about City issues, which is frustrating.
Torres-Walker only responded recently to answer questions and provide information about the sale of El Campanil Theatre and her unsuccessful efforts to get the City to purchase it. But since then, crickets. Also, Wilson is the only one who was either on the council or on City staff at the time it was first in the process of being sold in 2022 and 2023 to not tell the public what she knew about it. I offered her the opportunity to not respond directly to my questions but post her answers on her official Facebook page which she still hasn’t done.
Torres-Walker once complained to me in early 2022 via text in response to questions about the lawsuit against the City and her by the two officers involved in the incident with her sons back in 2020, claiming I was using her “family for click bait” and that I “fan the flames of misinformation” although I merely reported what was claimed in the lawsuit and gave her the chance to offer her side of the matter. She finished with, “Here is where we part ways and it wasn’t for a lack of trying.”
If you’re going to be an elected official, at times you’re going to be asked tough questions that are not comfortable to keep the public informed. She is the one who made the incident with her sons go public by complaining they were mistreated by the two officers, resulting in the lawsuit. As the old saying goes, don’t shoot the messenger, especially for doing my job and merely asking questions and reporting what people write, do and say, especially elected officials.
Torres-Walker and Wilson Have Worn Out Their Welcome on the Council
On the positive side, I’ve had the opportunity to interact and get to know Torres-Walker, off the dais, and I, frankly, like and find her, fun to be around. Plus, she’s been more involved in the community in the past year, specifically with the Rivertown area and the new Downtown Antioch Association, specifically, working to help the businesses with private security to supplement police efforts. But she still rarely attends any Rivertown events while her opponent does.
Yet, while I believe Torres-Walker is well intentioned, has been a leader for the causes she’s championed, has grown in the position and matured as an individual, is less strident than when she first began and represents a constituency in Antioch, she still says crazy and radical things during what I’ve labeled her “diatribes from the dais”, and does things that are embarrassing and unbecoming of an elected representative.
So, I believe her time for her service in the position on the Council has come to an end. As Esther in the Bible who was in place as the queen, “for such a time as this,” to get the king to save her people, I believe Tamisha has fulfilled her role, has completed her task and it’s time for someone else with a different viewpoint focused on the future to step in to represent District 1 and all of Antioch. Should she lose, Torres-Walker can spend more time working on her worthwhile non-profit organization in Richmond.
For Wilson, whose 14 years have been way too much time for her decision-making negatively affecting our community, her time on the Council has also come to an end – especially, now that the City has been released from the U.S Department of Justice’s agreement regarding the Antioch Police Department, which Torres-Walker applauded. (See related articles here and here)
So, while some good has been accomplished, the bottom line is the bad and the ugly far outweigh it and the result is Torres-Walker and Wilson have worn out their welcome on the Council.
Time for Renewed & New Leadership on the City Council
Instead, it’s time for renewed and new leadership on the Antioch City Council. Motts brings renewed leadership having served previously on both the Antioch School Board in 2010-14 and on the City Council in 2018-20 and White brings new leadership with some City government experience having served as Chair of the Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commission, helping organize Neighborhood Watch and Business Alert programs, before it was disbanded so the Antioch Police Oversight Commission could be formed.
Torres-Walker defeated Motts in 2020 receiving only 36.2% of the vote with a third candidate in the race. Then Motts challenged her in 2022, and with a third candidate in the race, again, Motts lost by just three votes on Election Day. But following a costly recount, Motts ended up losing by four votes but Torres-Walker received only 34.4% of the vote meaning 65.6% of the voters wanted someone else to represent them. With no other candidate in the race this year, the one-on-one competition should prove more favorable for Motts. But she believes it will be close, either way.
For full disclosure, I helped raise funds to pay for her costly recount in 2022.
I’ve also worked with Joy multiple times to promote all the various events of the Celebrate Antioch Foundation, since the beginning when we helped form the organization, for which she has been serving as president since 2010.
In her role with Celebrate Antioch, Motts helped organize the City’s Sesquicentennial 150th Anniversary of Cityhood Celebration in 2022 with a year’s long of events and activities. While some complained she and the other two leaders of the organization were paid by the City for their work, it was a total of $25,000 split amongst them, which is a pittance for the amount of time they put in.
Motts has championed the Rivertown Square project on the former Antioch Lumber Company lot in downtown which, if built, it would be in place of the large, Barbara Price Marina Park that was removed years ago when the new Marina Boat Launch and parking lot were built. Unfortunately, the Council, including Torres-Walker and Wilson, after having voted for the project in 2021 and to hire a firm to design it, then City staff held community meetings for public input on the design, the councilwomen voted against pursuing state grant funds for it, this year. Wilson had also previously voted to allow for the park and event center there in June 2015, but just two months later she flip-flopped and voted to sell the lot to a private developer. Fortunately, that never transpired.
In general, I agree with Motts on many if not most issues, but not everything. The one major issue I remember having a challenge with her previously, was Motts’ vote in 2020, along with Wilson and Thorpe, to postpone indefinitely the proposed project by Gabriel Chiu, known as the Delta Fair Village, which included apartments and commercial space on Delta Fair Blvd. where the FoodMaxx store was previously located. Their issue was he hadn’t been keeping that or his other commercial properties in the city cleaned up. I believe she should have voted for the project with the condition Chiu clean up his properties before a building permit would be issued for the new development. Instead, they lost all of their leverage and still nothing has happened with the property, although plans have been submitted to the City.
Motts was a leader on dealing with the City’s homeless problem and instrumental in the establishment of the Opportunity Village homeless hotel on E. 18th Street, the City’s first major effort to address the issue. She was one of the three council members who first voted to advance the transitional housing project. (See related articles here and here)
White first ran for City Council in 2020 in a three-candidate race but lost to Wilson by a little more than two-to-one. She ran again in 2022 in a four-candidate race which included both Wilson and Ogorchock but placed fourth. As they say, third time is a charm and although this year there are also four candidates in the race, including homeless and affordable housing advocate Andrew Becker, who is a regular at council meetings speaking on a variety of issues and newcomer Matty Alappat, I’m hoping that’s the case and believe Sandra has a better shot at winning, especially with the baggage Wilson is carrying.
On a side note, my encouragement to Andrew is to continue doing his detailed research, speaking out on the issues and challenging both the council members and City staff. But as I’ve told him directly, he needs to temper his tone if he wants to be more effective in winning them over to his side. For Matty, who I have yet to meet but have spoken to and believe she’s quite sharp, I encourage her to apply for a commission appointment to get more knowledge about Antioch and some experience serving the community before seeking office, again.
I believe White is the best choice of the three challengers in this year’s District 4 race as she has also proven herself through community service and leadership as a Board Member of the Antioch Schools Education Foundation and Delta Learning Center and as a former President of the Antioch Rotary Club.
White will bring common sense to the City Council, plus, leadership experience in management in the private sector from her job which, according to her LinkedIn profile, is as the Vice President of Human Resources for the Center for Social Dynamics. According to their website, the California-based corporation with locations in seven other states, “helps individuals and families navigating autism and other behavioral conditions make meaningful progress through personalized, research-backed ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) therapy.”
Also, White offers fiscal responsibility and will focus on her priorities of Economic Development, Public Safety, Responsible Support for the Unhoused – which are all sorely needed in Antioch – plus, Community Partnerships & Accountability.
But one challenge I have with White, unlike Motts and Becker, is she takes too long to respond to phone calls, texts and emails which is very frustrating. She will need to work on improving in that area if she’s elected.
Finally, both Motts and White have the right temperament, the commitment to all of Antioch and the heart to serve us well in the position and they also will represent our city both locally and regionally in a positive, respectful way.
For renewed and new leadership on the Antioch City Council please join me in choosing Joy Motts and Sandra White for election.
