Dear Editor,

I have been following the Dozier-Libbey story in the Antioch Herald and have read every article and all of the comments that have populated under each one. I have noticed that about 99% of the comments strongly support the teachers and their Independent Charter Petition.

FACT: 1. The Independent Charter Petition came first.

FACT: 2. The Independent Charter Petition was developed by teachers, not administrators and is almost twice as long as the district counter-proposal. The Independent Charter Petition provides many more details and aligns with the existing programs since it was created by the people who made Dozier-Libbey what it is today.

FACT: 3. None of the people who signed the Independent Charter Petition were coerced into signing.

FACT: 4. The Deer Valley signers of the Dependent Charter Petition from the district, who signed that they were meaningfully interested in teaching at DLMHS were promised they would NOT have to go there to teach if they signed the document. (This was related to me by a teacher who was at that meeting).

FACT:5. The Dozier-Libbey teachers have the full support of the California Charter Schools Association and their Independent Charter Petition aligns with the California Charter Schools Act.

FACT:6. Principal Nancie Castro was the top candidate, selected by a committee for her Science background, two years before the school was even built. She designed the model from the ground up and built her team. Each person was chosen from a pool of candidates because they were a good fit for the school.

FACT:7. Principal Scott Bergerhouse, the newly selected Principal for the district dependent charter, according to his bio was an English teacher and was appointed “in house” by the Superintendent and the Board, without any input from parents or community groups.

FACT:8. The whole “sports” issue has been fabricated by the AUSD since they could choose to let the Dozier-Libbey Independent Charter students continue to play sports under CIF regulations at DVHS and AHS as they do now, simply by creating a MOU (memo of understanding) between schools. By choosing not to create an MOU, they have artificially created a situation that could easily be fixed should they choose to fix it.

FACT:9. The AUSD has already given Principal Scott Bergerhouse an office at Dozier-Libbey and he was introduced to the students as their “new Principal” on a room by room tour last week, in front of the current Principal, Nancie Castro. They also posted a banner on the front of the school stating his new role.

FACT:10. The DLMHS students staged a thirty-minute walkout last week in response to the disrespect shown to Mrs. Castro by the AUSD and teachers wore black as a way of “silent protest” since they cannot talk about the charter situation with students.

FACT:11. The teachers have established a Facebook page where they welcome all comments, pro and con. As of today, most of the comments have been supportive of the teachers. The district has also created a Facebook page where several parents and students posted critical comments yet all of the comments were removed and a disclaimer now sits in their place. That is their version of transparency.

FACT:12. DLMHS Parents had established a table outside the school with a sign about signing up for the Independent Charter for next year. They were giving out forms for parents to fill out and return. They were told to remove their tables and had to go stand outside of school property on the roadside to give out their forms. Almost immediately the AUSD administration set up their own table with an expensive banner and began giving out their own forms in the location vacated by the parents. Parents were led to believe that if they did not respond by 4/7, their students would lose their spot and it would be filled by someone else on the waiting list. Due to the next hearing in superior court, that date was extended to 4/28.

It does not seem fair that parents have to stand outside school and give out their forms on the roadside when AUSD officials can do it right next to the school building. What are they afraid of? It does not seem fair that the teachers cannot talk about the charter with students provided they present both sides of the issue. Again, what are they afraid of? What happened to freedom of speech?

Andre’ Epstein

Mr. Epstein is a graduate of U.C. Berkeley, a 36-year veteran teacher (23 years with AUSD) and was the AUSD Teacher of the Year 2003-2004. He most recently taught Spanish at DLMHS until retirement.

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your continued well-balanced reporting of the contentious issue of the Dozier-Libbey charter conversion.

I know there are some issues where you and I do not, and probably will not ever, see eye-to-eye. However, the need for public school reform has never been one of them. I write today no longer a constituent of Antioch, but as a citizen of California and a school reform advocate. Mr. Crowder hit the nail on the head with his analysis earlier this week. This issue is far greater than Antioch and has the potential to stop the charter-movement, and the school-reform movement, dead in their tracks. Antioch politics have not given rise to an issue with greater state and national significance since I first moved there over ten years ago.

Charter school law is an example of the great power of political compromise. It accords parents and teachers the opportunity to take a direct role in the policies and procedures that govern their local schools while ensuring equal opportunities under the law to students regardless of class, race, or net worth. By vesting the power of school control in those who work with students on a day-to-day basis rather than a district office that needs to find some way of educating students with a disparate set of interests, needs, and motivations, charter schools can overcome the “Harrison Burgeron” effect of many district schools while remaining in the public sphere.

That said, charter school law is not a panacea. Plenty of charter schools fail – some from corruption and some from incompetence. Some commentators suggest that predicting charter school success requires some sort of precognition. This is why the conversion charter is such a strong model. A charter conversion typically requires a dedicated team of professionals with a proven track record of success. Districts (or counties when districts fail to do so) are encouraged to put their faith in a talented group of professional educators and release the reins on successful programs. By allowing self-governance by trusted leadership, school boards, and by proxy voters, are assured they will have successful, cutting edge opportunities for their students.

There could not be a better candidate for this type of success than Dozier-Libbey. Nancie Castro and her tireless, dedicated team have created a truly innovative and successful program—one that has shown excellence working within the confines of a district framework, but could truly soar if those regulations were lifted. There has been a great deal of press paid to specific policy decisions (for example the “no D” policy) that are rooted in research and best practices, but the real power of charter law is not in specific policies, but in the educators’ abilities to shape that policy quickly and efficiently as the need arises.

Even under an independent charter, there are checks and balances. The school must regularly return to sponsoring board to report on its progress and seek a continuation of its charter. A board of directors still has fiduciary duties and oversight responsibilities, and many meet Brown Act style public meeting requirements. Most charters are WASC accredited and require the continuous oversight that an accreditation board offers. Finally, charter schools are subject to state audits to ensure taxpayer money is being well spent and appropriately accounted for. Under this rigorous framework, there is certain to be accountability for public funds.

There has been much discussion in social and mainstream media regarding the equity and access issues to charter schools, specifically to the proposed Dozier-Libbey charter. One of the elements of a charter petition, and one of the most heavily scrutinized elements, is its plan to maintain balance and diversity. No doubt that oftentimes charters do not succeed in this regard. Maintaining true balance in a school of choice is a difficult undertaking and requires a great deal of planning and organization. Even then, it is not always possible.

With the conflicting data being thrown about, I am not comfortable saying whether or not Dozier-Libbey has entirely successful in maintaining a perfect racial/cultural balance in the few years since it has opened. What I can say is that there is no reason to suspect this data would be affected negatively by charter governance. A charter school can react quickly to demographic shifts and recruiting needs than a district school. I can remember many instances when Nancie was trying to get recruiting materials out more quickly, hold more parent meetings, and offer various times of day for parents to sign their kids up for Dozier-Libbey. Oftentimes the attempts were met with the lethargic complacency

of school district policy making. I firmly believe any perceived inequities have been exacerbated, rather than alleviated by district oversight.

It is important at this juncture to discuss the difference between elite and elitist. An elite school creates excellence; an elitist school requires it at admission. Dozier-Libbey is an elite school. Anyone can apply, and anyone lucky enough to be selected in the random lottery can attend. Once that student is on campus, it is up to him or her to succeed. A recent editorial in another publication mocked Dozier-Libbey’s “Cure” program. This program (that I believe no longer operates under this controversial acronym) is exactly what most parents and teachers want – additional one-on-one instruction and support for students who need it.

This is one of the many ways in which Dozier-Libbey is elite, rather than elitist – anyone that chooses to succeed is given every opportunity to do so.

I could go on-and-on about the virtues of the Dozier-Libbey charter petition (perhaps you think I already have). But I wanted to write this to you, personally.

While we disagree on some ideas, we have always respected each other’s minds and hearts. This is a good move for students, a good move for the community, and a good move for the state. I hope you will come out in support of Dozier-Libbey’s charter conversion petition.

Jason Miller

Miller is the Founder and former Administrator of the Delta Academy of the Performing Arts, which is part of the Antioch Unified School District, and is now located at Deer Valley High School.

Guest Commentary

By Jeff Weber

The ongoing effort to convert Dozier-Libbey Medical High School, a high-performing pathway school in the Antioch Unified School District (AUSD), to a public charter school has swelled into a highly publicized, and at times ugly, battle in the court of public opinion.  Emotions are running high on both sides.  If there is a positive side to this political fight, it may be that the people of Antioch now have a much better understanding of their school district and of the wider charter schools movement in America.  Yet many are still asking, why is this all necessary?  Is this really in the best interest of our kids?  The answer is, it could be, if given the chance.  This article will attempt to explain in a rational way how Antioch could be better served by independent charter schools, and how we could get there with minimal disruption to our students.

Today more people in Antioch understand that an independent charter school is still a public school.  The general community will really see little change after a school converts from a district school to a charter.  The school will continue to serve the same students and meet the same state standards.  What will change is the governing board of the school.  A true charter school is independent and governed by a dedicated board of parents and community members that serve only that school.  A charter school’s board will not be distracted by the plethora of issues that the AUSD board of trustees must deal with in its 25-school district. 

It is also clear to most Antioch residents now that Dozier-Libbey teachers are not “stealing” their school.  In fact, the teachers are exercising their rights granted by the California legislature to convert a school to a charter if they feel doing so would better serve the students of that school. 

So why did the teachers of Dozier-Libbey take on this fight?  It was clearly going to be a David versus Goliath match-up from the start, with the district using its vast resources of public money and public employees, while Dozier-Libbey teachers worked extra nights and weekends and paid expenses out of pocket.  It was most certainly not so that teachers could stop giving ‘D’ grades to their students—a suggestion that has been highly publicized, but in fact does not exist in the charter petition objectives. 

The truth is, Dozier-Libbey teachers are risking a lot.  Most have decades of service behind them, and some are well within reach of a comfortable retirement.  They are giving up district tenure and seniority for an uncertain future and salaries that will stay on par with their previous district amounts, at best.  It would be impossible to argue that teachers are pushing the charter conversion for any reason other than the benefit of their students.

And their students do stand to gain a great deal from a charter conversion.  Here are some hard facts and numbers that show where Dozier-Libbey sits as a district school, and where it could be as an independent charter.  These are small examples among many that together represent a current system of educational management that is simply broken.

Early last year Dozier-Libbey teachers used grant money to purchase 15 new laptop computers to serve economically disadvantaged students.  Because of bureaucratic bumbling (an adequate cart could not be found), these brand new computers sat in a school district storeroom for over five months, despite repeated pleas from teachers, and have yet to reach the students who need them.  If Dozier-Libbey were a charter, this educational time would not have been lost.

This year, 20 students at Dozier-Libbey lost their job-shadowing opportunities with Sutter Delta Hospital because insurance forms were inexplicably held then mismanaged by the district bureaucracy, despite repeated calls from the Dozier-Libbey coordinator.  These valuable educational experiences would not have been lost if the necessary paperwork could have been handled in-house by a charter school.

Untold other educational opportunities have been lost to Dozier-Libbey, including real-time interactions with working doctors and nurses around the world, because district-wide policies could not be tailored to fit the needs of this unique school.  By their very nature, school districts like AUSD must operate on a “one size fits all” mentality in order to control such vast numbers of students and schools.  Dozier-Libbey was never designed to be a cookie-cutter high school.  It was created to be innovative.  Dozier-Libbey has numerous new programs ready to be implemented that address mastery learning of core subjects and credit recovery for struggling students, however these programs are not possible under AUSD, either because the other two high schools are not willing to embrace them (one size must fit all), or there is simply no funding to do so at Dozier-Libbey.

The state funding of public schools is based on the daily attendance at that school (known as “ADA”).  Schools like Dozier-Libbey with large percentages of economically disadvantaged students also receive additional federal funding, commonly referred to as “Title 1.”  All of this is taxpayer money that has been earmarked for educating our children.  However, school districts as large as AUSD have many layers of expensive bureaucracy that siphon off much of that student funding.  The combined salaries of the AUSD administrators (Don Gill, Tim Forrester, Stephanie Anello, Mike Santos, Louis Rocha, and Kenneth Gardner), who have spent so much of the past few months fighting the conversion charter, total over a million dollars.  That’s enough money to hire more than 20 librarians (DLMHS currently has one part-time librarian).  And there are literally scores of other administrators in Antioch being paid six-figure salaries who rarely venture near a classroom.  The more that schools operate independently, the less these central administration positions can be justified to the public—and that’s a very scary prospect for those individuals who enjoy them.

Dozier-Libbey receives from the district only a fraction of its ADA entitlements and none of its Title 1 monies.  The school site principal was given control of only $29,000 last school year, and of that funding amount $5,000 went toward paying a district-negotiated lease for the school’s copy machine.  Another $8,000 went toward paying the school’s librarian to stay an extra hour each day beyond the four hours for which she is contracted by the district.  Fortunately, many Dozier-Libbey teachers have been prolific in writing grant requests for their special projects.  Yet, even such grant money directed to Dozier-Libbey is occasionally siphoned off by the district for other uses.  And Dozier-Libbey suffers because of its own highly efficient fiscal management.  Antioch High School, a school only three times the size of Dozier-Libbey, receives eight times the operating budget from the district!  As a charter school, far more funding allocated by the state and federal government for Dozier-Libbey students would benefit Dozier-Libbey students.

So how does the charter conversion all turn out, and more importantly, what does it do for the kids?  At this point, there are two possible paths that the school district could take.

The first is for AUSD to continue with their current strategy.  The counter petition the district filed to make Dozier-Libbey a “dependent charter” stands on only the shakiest of legal ground, but it will serve to drag the conversion into the courts for possibly months or years—a stated objective made by the district at the school board hearing on their proposal.  They will spend untold thousands from public funds on litigation—money desperately needed by their own students.  (Dozier-Libbey charter petitioners are now receiving legal support from numerous pro-education organizations throughout the state.)  The district will undoubtedly also use this time to make staffing changes at the school, hamstringing a dedicated and highly professional team that has been years in development. 

However, another course of action could be for the leaders of AUSD to put the needs of the students of Antioch ahead of their own egos.  Allow the teachers of Dozier-Libbey, whom they’ve recognized as highly competent professionals, to run with their grand experiment unfettered and unchallenged.  If the charter succeeds, it will benefit not only the students at Dozier-Libbey, but will bring forth innovations and new ideas that can be shared with the entire district (as has been seen in numerous other charter-to-school district relationships).  But if Dozier-Libbey fails to meet its ambitious objectives as a charter, then the charter is simply revoked and the school returns to AUSD management.  These conversions, in either direction, do not need to be messy or expensive.  It is the district that is choosing to make it so. 

And so one can only wonder, what is the district really afraid of?

Jeff Weber is an 18-year veteran of AUSD, and currently teaches world history at Dozier-Libbey Medical High School and one of the organizers of the charter petition.

In January, angry animal advocates packed the Antioch City Council Chambers to vehemently object to a ban on feeding community cats on public property and the requirement of a permit for households that own more than five cats. An annual application and fee of $108 is required for multiple pets and includes an agreement to have a home inspection if asked. The City Council delayed implementation and requested that the ordinance be discussed at a future meeting.

I have been told that the item is on the agenda for March 25 and the staff is coming back with the same recommendation with regard to a ban and a pet limit.

As an alternative to a feeding ban which has been ineffective in other communities, HARP and several organizations have proposed a community endorsed Trap/Neuter/Return (T/N/R) program in partnership with the city. No funding is being requested from the city. T/N/R has been going on for ten years. The groups humanely trap the cats, transport them for surgeries and immunizations, and recover them before they are returned to their original spot. Tame cats and kittens are placed for adoption. T/N/R decreases the number of kittens born and keeps the population from exploding.

One of the reasons the situation has gotten out of hand in Antioch is that an overwhelming number of cats and dogs are being abandoned by irresponsible people. This is a community problem and should be addressed. Pet abandonment will not be solved by a feeding ban.

Karen A. Kops, President, Homeless Animals Response Program (HARP)

President, Spay/Neuter Impact Program (SNIP)

Editor:

Mayor Pro Tem Rocha and Council Members Gary Agopian and Monica Wilson, take a bow! You did the City of Antioch a great justice by your recent vote to deny the Pointe Project. That development would have ravaged 21 acres of hillside land at the western edge of the city, robbing God-given beauty and some wind barrier. 

More frightening for the future, it would have overturned a hillside development ordinance that has been in effect since 1981. That ordinance had been applied on at least six projects over the past three decades. It’s disregard would send a signal that agreements can be bent and broken when expedience dictates.

They say you can’t fight City Hall but in the Philippines, where my wife hails from, they call it ‘people power’. I applaud the residents of the Black Diamond Estates Project, Save Mount Diablo Organization and the Antioch Planning Commission for all standing tall and fighting the good fight.

Antioch takes its’ knocks. We can all agree it was overbuilt, is too saturated, too cookie cutter and in the case of our Malls, too boxy (how one wishes we had insisted on a pedestrian-friendly plan like the Streets of Brentwood, which has strolling charm). Be that as it may, our mistakes can’t be undone.  

We do, though, have three natural assets other locales don’t. One, obviously, is our seat at the Delta.  The River brings views, recreation and a cooling breeze. 

The second blessing is our undulating streets. Hillcrest and Deer Valley come to mind as a boon from monotonous straight lines! 

The third asset are the hills that we didn’t all chop off; some internal and some dramatically framing our town.  Guests visiting me who drive along Hillcrest marvel at the ambiance. It feels palatial.

Yes, more homes is easy money. We know and respect that the fees are tempting, what with city services having hit rock bottom. Things are on an upswing, though, and patience will be rewarded.  

In the meantime, let’s hope that whenever there is the next, let’s face it, inevitable ‘mini-wave’ the infrastructure is long set. Wouldn’t it be nice, then, to have something really different from the hum-drum, we’ve got plenty, tracts. How about senior developments like Trilogy in Brentwood; or McMansions on oversized lots that draw in the Blackhawk crowd who could set up needed business and light industry here? Now you’ve got my attention.

Yes, more city workers and a return to five days of City Hall service? Valued.

Respect for past agreements…. appreciation of the hills.

They are priceless.

Walter Ruehlig

Antioch

Dear Editor,

I want to thank Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty for contending for the faith!  In his interview with GQ, he spoke the truth that many of us God fearing Christians felt needed to be expressed.  Phil paraphrased the truth that can be found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.  If the liberal media and the LGTB community are at odds with this message, they can take it up with God!  The hypocrisy in the liberal and entertainment media was futher exposed!  A & E loves the money, but hates the message!

The mega-popular Duck Dynasty series is so refreshing in this dark world.  Heck, you can watch it with your 3 year old.  Our founding fathers would have loved it!  A family with deep reverence for God, family and country is such a rarity in today’s media!  My suggestion to those who find this message to be offensive:  exercise your constitutional right and change the channel!  Perhaps you can find a Myley Cyrus special!

Silent no more!

Michael Pollard

Antioch

Editor:

Thanksgiving Black Thursday is now memories. It wasn’t the bust some retailers feared. I, myself, who have avoided Black Fridays like the Bubonic Plague, peeked into Wal-Mart on an evening walk working off curiosity and the second portion of pecan pie.

At best, it was organized chaos with snaking lines of brimming carts. Thankfully, shoppers seemed subdued, perhaps digesting the turkey tryptophan or glazed ham. The Pilgrims would be happy there were no stampedes.

While I don’t begrudge the retailer relief, I sigh, though, for the national gestalt. For my two cents, another incremental step of noise and distraction had been added to an already disquieted world. After all, Thanksgiving is more than just a day for family but for reflection and rejuvenation.

Everyday life is inundated with busyness, complexity, noise and incessant material urges. On a national day of gratitude for all our enduring gifts, need we fight the crowds for more ‘stuff’?

Could Christmas Day be the next to fall to the relentless economic machine of consumerism driving our world? Will people think, ‘hey, I went to morning service and it’s mid-day. I’m itching for a sale!’

Fanciful scenario? Admittedly so, but in a world where national retailers toyed with calling Christmas trees ‘holiday trees’ anything is possible.

Consider Joe Lieberman, the former Senator from Connecticut and Vice Presidential candidate under Al Gore, who wrote a compelling book called “The Gift of Rest; Rediscovering the Beauty of the Sabbath.” Admittedly, Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, goes a great deal further in his observance than most people would ever consider. He not only not refuses working unless urgent, but turns off his Blackberry, avoids cars, and even darkens house lights.

What I find most interesting in his book, though, is the Senator’s less extreme argument for non-religious people. Lieberman says that having a day a week of rest not only aids spiritual rejuvenation but makes plain physical and psychological sense. After all, aren’t we always “on”, forever thinking, worrying, planning, wired and connected? Who couldn’t use a pause, a momentary break, to rejuvenate; maybe have some time to think on the greater import of life.

My wish for our great country, then, is not to dampen the shopping fever. No, there are plenty of days for cash register euphoria and now Black Friday never looked so good.

I submit, though, that for our mental collective well-being, if nothing else, we get back to the Sabbath, or if we will, Day of Pause. Meantime, I hope we can start by keeping at least a few days dear; Thanksgiving, Christmas (for those of other persuasions, the likes of Passover or Ramadan).

It’s a mad, mad, mad world. A little centering is maybe what the good doctor ordered.

Walter Ruehlig

Antioch

Editor:

A question has been asked about citizen’s viewpoint on ½ % sales tax increase in Antioch, it did not mention that it would last for 7 years.

Before I reply to the question, I believe that my observations are necessary to clarify my opposition to Measure “C”. It will be a single item on the Ballot on November 5^th. I forecast a small voter turn-out which, unfortunately, will not fully represent citizen opinion on this major issue.

I make this plea: Please, please vote. We need a high count. That is very important. It sends a message to our politicians’ to consider before they attempt to raise more Taxes in Antioch. The Mayor has told me that he believes a large majority of Antioch support Measure “C”. If the count is something like 2000 YES and 1985 NO is that a real majority?

My desire is to give the reader background information (as a pseudo reporter) especially to those who do not attend City Council Meetings.

I have been sitting on street corners with a sign asking for “NO on “C”. I am amazed how many people have been asking “what this is about”. That is what prompted me to write this commentary.

I am going back to original items that were on agendas concerning additional money to hire more police officers. My reason is also to shed light on how our city manages business. Then the heading of this document will be obvious.

I have attended every Antioch City Council Meeting that had the Sales Tax issue on the agenda. In the beginning there were 2 measures being proposed. The one not on the ballot, was designed to collect additional money from business license fees on rental properties.

Let’s start at the very beginning to give you knowledge of “how” this Measure was allowed on a ballot in the first place.

The City Council declared a Fiscal Emergency using increase in crime to authorize Measure “C”. A consolidated statement to be used on the Ballot was sent to the CCC Elections Department. (CCCED). The CCCED required the City to agree to pay Ballot costs. The Council complied immediately approving the cost of over $22,000.00. That is charged even if the measure fails. A very costly deficit win or loose.

PROPOSED MEASURES:

First agenda item proposed increasing income from Business Rental Fees. Currently Apartment and Multiple Dwellings are charged rental fees, Single rented Residences are not.

The idea was to charge a $20.00 monthly license fee on single rented properties. The money would be used for additional Officers.

A number of homes have been bought in bulk, are owned by investors for the sole purpose of making money, a return on investment (ROI). ROI from dwellings is certainly a Business and has made a large impact citywide.

Adding single or multiply owned individual property to require payment of Rental License Fees would equalize treatment to all parties in the rental business.

The second agenda item (it became Measure “C”) was also proposed. An increase in Sales Tax by ½% for 10 years was introduced. The money was also to go to the Police Department. It was amended to make it more “digestible” from 10 to “only” 7 years. This was done to obtain support by The City Chamber of Commerce, it was their idea. (Perhaps off the subject; in my opinion, The ACC group has not attracted new business into Antioch for years.)

Council members Harper and Agopain made many statements telling us that we need more officers to “prevent” and “reduce” crime. Police statistics were used to support their claims. The need for more safety stressed.

Both the Mayor and Council Members said that they were not going to “let criminals take over our city”. The solution is more police meaning more “boots on the streets”. They insinuated that criminals would not want to come into Antioch because added police would defer them.

There were never explanations as to “how” the additional officers could prevent or reduce crime. Unfortunately a set of new crime statistics had not reached their desks that might have enlightened them. Those statistics showed lower percentages crime (excluding murder from 3 to 5; I ask you, how can Police prevent murder?)

I made citizen comments at every meeting suggesting alternatives. I talked of more focus on developing cohesive neighborhoods instead of more police. I gave our Council documents about the city of Richmond’s applied efforts to reduce crime which was independent of police methods; something that Antioch might apply.

I stated that more officers would not “prevent or reduce crime”, it might reduce “response time” but Police intervention is after the crime has been committed.

There’ll always be criminals; they know consequences if caught in the act but have no fear of police. Suggesting that they will avoid Antioch because of additional officers is a farce.

The City Council (not listening to any input) was not sure how voters would react if both of the Agenda items were placed on the ballot. They feared defeat similar to Measure “P” three years ago. (Note: That measure required a 2/3 voter approval and failed.)

The Council placed an order for an Independent Survey of constituents to help them determine what to do. The cost of the Survey was $18,000.00. Only 400 Citizens were surveyed. The forecast resulted in an “estimate” that if both measures were on a ballot one would fail.

A well-known group up of citizens ‘The Breakfast Club”(which consists of former council members, Ex-mayor, and other businessmen) appeared before the Council and advised them that they were in support of applying the Rental Fees but were against any Sales Tax increase. I had also pleaded (twice) saying that the fee option was best because it was fairness in business, would provide a stable yearly amount of money, and it wouldn’t be limited to 10 years.

After the survey results were interpreted which indicated that if both items were placed on the ballot “one would fail” (and advice that a 2/3 majority vote would also be very risky). Our City Council deleted the Rental Fee idea and choose to go ahead with only the increased Sales Tax Measure.

Then with fear of failure placing it on the ballot with specific use of funds to the Police Department requiring a 2/3 majority vote. They modified the earlier decision changing direction to send the money into the General Fund. Measure “C” reasons changed! Can we still claim the “emergency” Read the ballot the reason for the tax has been changed! The tax is no longer going to the Police Department it will (supposedly) be divided into a fair distribution for ALL city service improvements. Manipulation?

To influence a yes vote by citizens the Council has promised to set-up (yet another) Commission as oversight of tax expenditures. The group of 7 will report once a year, will be appointed by the Mayor, and will have no power.

If you read the “Yes on “C” signs , and receive a big post card, and stickers on your newspaper you should take the time to find out where all of the money to pay for this massive advertising is coming from . Data is available at the City Clerk’s office. My investigation indicates that people owning multiple single unit rental properties have contributed over $30,000.00. Their Ads are propaganda. All placards tell you the money is for more police! This deception is supported by the Mayor and Council Members. I have reported $150.00 contribution for NO NEW TAXES signs without deception.

In closing I offer this for your consideration: The addition of Police Officers to “Prevent Crime” is pure speculation. The change directing income into the General Fund is a manipulation.

If Measure “C” passes the City Council will likely continue “deficit spending”, they have in the past and there is no reason to believe this will change. It is likely that hiring more police will start before money for tax has been collected and placed into the General Fund. The old “Buy now Pay later” repeatedly used by our “leaders” is one of the reasons that our city is near bankruptcy today.

Considering money contributed to influence the “WIN” compared to the amount spent supporting LOOSE makes me feel like it is a David vs. Goliath battle.

I assure you that I am not against any improvement of our Police Department. I supported the Rental Business Fee, I own and rent one property and had no problem with that proposal.

There is more to consider, just months ago Police Department benefits were increased. Retirement benefits cost went up. (Another “spend forward action”). The Police Chief pleaded for the extra money to lure (some costly) “experienced” officers. Some he had interviewed wanted more than our city was currently offering.

The Council moved without hesitation and approved that request and we will pay for it year after year. It is deficit spending! (Note: The Police Association can demand more when labor negotiations re-open and no ballot measure is required for increased in city spending.)

Placing “C” on the Ballot because we need more income to eliminate an “EMERGENCY” is wool over the County Elections Departments eyes. We have been in an “emergency” state for the last 5 (or more) years! Why the “emergency” now? Why wasn’t it declared before the huge reductions of all city services? That is a mystery to me.

I think our citizens should have been asked to send written ideas on possible solutions to reduce debt and used to develop and implement a strategy to solve our problems. That, however would require more than a 3 minute input at meetings and it might be considered as interference.

November 5^th is my 79^th Birthday. I have been a resident since I was 9 ½ years of age. I hope David mentioned earlier will prevail. I thank you for reading this to the end. I have tried to minimize insinuation, within this article, it is opinion, and everything written is based on my participation and observations of City Council actions for many months.

I will appreciate your Gift at the Ballot Box when you Vote “NO on “C”. Again, I thank all of you for reading this to the end.

Fred Hoskins, Antioch