Antioch Council members should have handled call for police reforms better instead of causing unnecessary division in our city.

Forming committee sends wrong message that there are systemic problems in the APD.

By Allen Payton

Last week Antioch Councilman Lamar Thorpe announced his support and desire for the implementation of eight reforms by the Antioch Police Department, as part of a nationwide effort known as 8 Can’t Wait. Police Chief T Brooks, responded the next day explaining how five of the reforms have already been or are being implemented in his department, and why he doesn’t recommend implementing the other three.

That upset Thorpe and he is now demanding the other three be implemented, as well.

Then, Councilwoman Monica Wilson, in Facebook and Twitter posts on Tuesday, June 9, also jumped on the nationwide bandwagon in support of the 8 Can’t Wait effort. In a completely inappropriate way, based on assumptions, she called out her fellow council members, all whom are white, to support the effort, by interjecting race into her complaint that they weren’t speaking out in favor of the reforms, because they aren’t black, writing “We need to stop expecting Black politician’s (sic) to carry the full weight of creating change; I call on my council colleagues to do the same.”

I contacted and asked Mayor Sean Wright, Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts and Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock if they had heard of the eight proposals before last week. Wright said no, he hadn’t heard of them, before last week. Motts and Ogorchock both said they hadn’t heard of them until after the death of George Floyd. All Wilson had to do was call her council colleagues and inform them about the eight proposed reforms and ask what their thoughts were about them, and why they supported any or all of them or not. That would have been the responsible thing to do as one of our elected leaders, instead of playing the race card and calling them out publicly on social media.

She needs to apologize publicly, tonight to her fellow council members and the public whom they were all elected to serve, for doing so.

Minds Already Made Up, Irresponsible

But, what matters most for this discussion is that, even before hearing from the hired expert on the matter in Antioch, Chief Brooks, before the ad hoc committee is formed or community forums held, and even before taking any public input on the matter, both Thorpe and Wilson have already made up their minds that all eight reforms are necessary to be implemented in our city. Their premature announcements also assume the reforms weren’t already being implemented – which we learned the next day, most have been or are.

That’s not responsible leadership or representative government, that’s political gamesmanship and appearing to get out in front of an issue in the direction it’s already headed to appear to be the leader on the matter, to score points with voters.

What Was A United Effort Is Now Divided

What started out as pretty much everyone being on the same side of wanting those who caused the death of George Floyd – which may be determined to be murder based on the charges against the former police officers – got turned into an issue by some radical elements, their uneducated followers and kneejerk, reactionary, publicity seeking politicians in our nation, that is dividing our country, and now our city.

Those politicians – including three in Antioch, adding Antioch School Board Trustee Ellie Householder to that list, who outrageously participated in a protest at Mayor Pro Tem Motts’ home Wednesday evening – are being irresponsible, elected representatives, who are unnecessarily stirring up their followers and others, using false information and exaggeration, most of which has nothing to do with Antioch.

Very Vocal Minority

The fact is, those supporting the formation of the ad hoc committee and calling for the defunding of the Antioch Police Department are a very vocal minority in our community. In fact, according to City Clerk Arne Simonsen, whose office received all the emailed public comments for Tuesday’s and tonight’s special council meetings, those who oppose the ad hoc committee versus those who support it are running against on an eight-to-one (8:1) margin.

700 people is a pretty good sampling. Nationwide political campaign polls are many times based on the surveying of just 1,000 people to arrive at their results. So, to have only about 90 people write in support of forming the ad hoc committee and over 600 public comments against it, the council members are in a pretty safe position if they oppose forming one.

Furthermore, let’s remember that in 2013 over 68% of the voters in Antioch supported the passage of Measure C, the half-cent sales tax to hire 22 more sworn officers, and in 2018 over 66% of Antioch voters approved Measure W, which increased that tax to a full cent, and most of the funds from it are to be used for even more police and public safety.

Committee Unnecessary as Input Already Received

Besides, with over 700 members of the public submitting comments, even though some aren’t from Antioch, the council has already received the input of the public. I seriously doubt that many people will actually show up at each of the ad hoc committee meetings or community forums, to give additional input.

But, if the council chooses to hold community forums, they must include members from the Police Crime Prevention Commission including the chair, which is made up of our fellow citizens who were appointed by the council to help improve public safety and reduce crime in our community.

No Defunding or Redirecting Funds Spent on Antioch Police

The bottom line is this. In Antioch, at a time we need more police officers on the force to continue to reduce crime in our city, the council must not defund, reduce or redirect any money currently being spent on police or even bring it up as a discussion item. After two votes by the people who overwhelmingly supported increases in spending to hire the necessary number of officers which is 115 currently, but which should be at least 126 to get to 1.2 officers per 1,000 population – the goal our city’s had for the past 25 years – any council member who supports doing anything different should not seek re-election.

Reforms Already Being Implemented, More Issued

What needs to happen is for the council to allow Chief Brooks to give a public report at one of their meetings of what he and his department are already doing to implement the eight reforms, and any other that are being issued by either President Trump, with his announcement on Tuesday, and by the state, with Governor Newsom’s announced reforms, earlier this month. Then, if any council member isn’t satisfied, they can ask to have an item placed on a council meeting agenda, and make a motion to direct the chief to implement whatever other reforms they believe are necessary. If it receives a second and a vote of at least three council members, then it passes and the chief will have to implement them or face being replaced.

That’s how things are supposed to be responsibly handled by the policy-making city council members, and in the future, that’s how they should be.

Unify Don’t Divide

The good news is most of our community is united and want more police, reduced crime and if any reforms are needed, for them to be implemented. We trust our police chief to continue to hire cops that understand how to handle themselves and serve we the people, and will also continue to mete out those officers who shouldn’t be wearing the badge.

What’s also needed is for those calling for the radical ideas of defunding and redirecting funds from police, whether it’s based on false information or just the desire to spend those dollars elsewhwere, to get educated about the issues and understand how police are funded, their purpose – to protect our rights, our families and our property – and stop the false accusations against the Antioch Police Department and its officers. We need all of our elected officials to use their positions responsibly to inform and educate based on facts, and unify instead of divide. Don’t let what’s happening elsewhere in our nation, that’s being hyped by the national media, to happen in Antioch.

There’s been a call for police to de-escalate their interactions with the public. Let’s have our council members be good examples and de-escalate this situation, tonight.

Those are my thoughts, hopes and prayers for our city during this challenging time.

Dear Editor:

Following is the letter I sent to the council.  My goal is to educate the council and have them conclude this ad-hoc commission is not needed.  Feel free to print this letter so the community can be educated also.

Dear Mayor and City Council,

My name is Jesse Zuniga, I moved to Antioch in 1989, from the inner Bay Area.  I served as a police officer for the City of Hayward between 1983 -1994.  In 1994, I lateraled to the City of Tracy where I served as a police officer until I retired in 2002.  I also served as an Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commissioner for two terms.  Since moving to Antioch, I have worked in partnership with our police department and city government to maintain a safe and clean community in order to improve the quality of life for our residents.  I have been a private investigator for nearly 20 years, and I serve as an independent panel investigator for the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC’s) Legal Defense Fund.  My firm provides independent and neutral legal investigations for PORAC’s legal defense fund when police officers are accused of misconduct or criminal behavior.  I travel throughout the state conducting such independent investigations.

I am aware of the “Ad Hoc Police Commission” that has been proposed by council members Lamar Thorpe, Monica Wilson and Thomas Smith, our city attorney.  I would like to provide you a summary of educational and valuable facts to consider before implementing a “police oversight commission.”

In my nearly 20 years of subcontracting as an independent investigator to PORAC’s legal defense fund, I have conducted hundreds of investigations involving first responders in both San Francisco (SF) and Oakland.  Both of these Bay Area cities have independent police oversight commissions.  I can attest to the fact that these oversight commissions are comprised of civilians and attorneys that have little knowledge about police practices.  Oversight police commissions are judging police officers’ tactics, practices, training policies and providing a sense of reform within their police organizations.  These commissions are often implementing policies and procedures that put the safety of first responder at high risk, because these policies conflict with state and federal laws and the California Peace Officers Standards and Training regulations.  Oakland PD was mandated by the Federal Court to implement a variety of reform procedures in the early 2000’s that led to officer deaths, following the infamous Oakland Riders trial and the establishment of new policies by their police oversight commission.

The California Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), provides exemplary training and guidelines that conform with state and federal standards to keep officers and the community they protect safe.  The POST training standards and guidelines are also supported by State and Federal Law. Police chiefs and sheriffs implement rules, regulations, policies and procedures that conform to the POST training standards and State and Federal standards/laws.  Law enforcement agencies often submit their rules and regulations/policies and procedures to POST for review and approval by the POST commission.  POST also conducts frequent audits and provides oversight to each law enforcement agency;  the POST audit process is very strict.  The strict standards that a police agency must meet are being evaluated by professionals in the law enforcement field to ensure officer safety and the safety of their constituents.

My experience with the SF and Oakland oversight commissions has shown me that civilian oversight commissions often make decisions based on personal bias’ or perceptions instead of reviewing a situation objectively and adhering to the POST standards, state and/or federal law standards.  The personal, emotional and political decisions of oversight commissions have proven to be costly to their cities and detrimental to the safety of their law enforcement personnel.  Commissions make decisions to impose discipline upon officers based on personal feelings or agendas, which often violate the Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights, the California Government Code, the agency’s policies and procedures and state and federal law.  The officers in question have the right to appeal the commission’s decision via an administrative proceeding or a court of law.  The expense of the appeal process is incurred by the city who imposes the discipline.  Frequently, the employee is reinstated by an administrative hearing officer/court judge.  Upon reinstatement, the city must make the employee whole by way of full reimbursement of lost earnings and benefits.  Because the administrative and court process can take years, the costs range from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions per employee.   In many cases, the commission’s decisions will override the imposed legal disciplinary recommendation by a police chief or sheriff.  We saw this recently in Oakland.  The Oakland commission used a predetermined outcome regarding a police officer’s use of force, which was in conflict with the police chief’s recommendation.  The former Oakland police chief’s decision was based upon the POST standards, state and federal law standards.  The commission’s predetermined disciplinary outcome did not meet the legal standards; the commission attempted to strong arm the former Oakland police chief following the commission’s decision.  The chief’s refusal to violate departmental policy, along with state and federal law led to the unilateral commission decision to terminate the Oakland police chief.  The former chief has filed a lawsuit against the city of Oakland and if the chief is awarded compensation or the city coordinates a settlement agreement, either can prove costly to the city of Oakland.  Antioch’s city attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith was a member of the Oakland commission that terminated the Oakland Chief.  Mr. Lloyd has served on the Oakland oversight commission since October 2017 and his term expires in October 2020.  Mr. Lloyd has first hand knowledge of the adverse affects the Oakland oversight commission has had on the Oakland community and police department.

Poor political decisions by an oversight commission have negative affects on a police organization and will create low morale that will lead to an exodus of police officers.  The recruiting/hiring process and training new officers is costly.  Subsequently, applicants are less likely to seek a job opportunity where the city government and commission do not support their officers’ and community members’ safety.  Cities like Oakland and SF have been struggling for decades to retain qualified officers, therefore, those cities have lowered their hiring standards, which attracts less desirable applicants that cannot meet the strict hiring standards of other agencies.  Antioch has benefitted from the hiring of the experienced and highly qualified officers who have left Oakland, SF and Stockton due to the unsavory political climates created by their oversight commissions.  

A few years back, the Antioch Police Department suffered from poor political decisions.  The results of the poor political decisions led to officers leaving the Antioch Police Department to work for other Bay Area agencies where the officers were valued as professionals.  I have been involved in investigating several administrative police disciplinary matters within the Antioch Police Department.   I also have professional relationships with many current officers, some of which came from other police departments.   Recently, the Antioch Police Department’s morale has improved, community relations have improved significantly, community based policing has been implemented in a successful manner, and accountability within the police department is equal amongst the ranks.  Implementing an oversight police commission can diminish all of these positive gains.

I would like to provide a summary of checks and balances already in place, and to provide some educational facts regarding the 6 points outlined on your ad-hoc commission meeting agenda:

1.  “Prevention of excessive use of force by police officers against members of the public, including banning police from using carotid artery restraints and chokeholds;”  The application of the carotid restraint is a technique that is only used in extreme circumstances where a combative suspect needs to be subdued because the suspect’s active resistance and the use of other techniques and or tools have proven to be completely ineffective.  The carotid restraint is rarely used and has proven to be effective when an officer’s life or community member’s life is at risk.  As with any technique or tool used, there can be negative implications.  Although the risk of death is present when applying the carotid restraint, statistics show that death as a result of the carotid restraint is very minimal and is not as lethal as discharging a firearm.
2.  “Demilitirazation”, elimination of military equipment from the police department.  Police agencies nation wide have had to Implement military style equipment and tactics in order to match the military style weapons and military type body armor criminals posses and often use in mass school shootings, malls and places of worship.  In 1997, TWO bank robbers in North Hollywood armed with AK-47s were responsible for shooting multiple officers and citizens during the botched robbery.  The police officers carrying handguns were outgunned by the robbers.  The Los Angeles SWAT team was deployed and one suspect wearing body armor was shot 28 times before becoming disabled.  The 1997 North Hollywood incident created the nation wide implementation, demand and need of military style weapons and tactics by police in order toprotect law abiding citizens and law enforcement personnel.  It is not reasonable nor responsible to take police departments back to the days of carrying revolvers (which carry six bullets) while criminals are armed with AR-15’s, AK 47’s, or many other assault type weapons that can carry or fire 30, 50 or hundreds of bullets in seconds, or bullets that can pierce a typical police bullet proof vest or concrete walls.  The use of armored vehicles, military style weapons and military type protective gear is necessary to protect the police officers while they risk their lives protecting their communities.  Criminals engaging in violent assaults in a community while using military style weapons must be met with equal or superior tools to neutralize the threat.In 2009, four Oakland police officers were killed by one suspect who was armed with a military style weapon.  One officer was killed during a traffic stop and the other three officers were SWAT team members who were ambushed by the suspect.  Had the Oakland SWAT and the Alameda County SWAT team members not been equipped with the approrpiate military gear there may have been more officers or community members killed by one suspect.  Luckily, Oakland Police and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department SWAT teams and patrol officers were properly equipped and trained to neutralize such a violent suspect without further loss of life or harm to the Oakland community.   I am confident you would not want Antioch PD to suffer such a loss or be ill prepared to handle such a devastating and dangerous act of terror in our community.
3.  “Required use of conflict de-escalation approaches by all sworn officers when interacting with the public”.  De-escalation tactics are taught and used everyday by police officers.  People must understand that when an officer implements his/her de-esclation tactics there are two critical points that need to occur for the de-escalation tactic to be successful.  First, the suspect has to mentally recognize the de-escalation process and second, the suspect has to agree and engage in the de-escalation process.  If the suspect refuses to recognize or engage in the de-escalation process then the de-escalation process is rendered unsuccessful and useless.  Once the de-escalation tactics are refused by the suspect, the officer must recognize the refusal and immediately implement other tactics to control the situation in order to protect the suspect, the officers or community members.
4.  “Increased accountability, including the process of receipt and review public complaints against the police for excessive use of force, racial and/or ethnic profiling, and other police misconduct”.  California POST and the state and federal laws are already in place to seek accountability that is within the law.  The law already allows for a review of public complaints pertaining to the use of force or other personnel complaints.  This is called a “pitches motion” and it can be filed in court.  There is also a public records request process, however, there are legal standards implanted by the state and federal government that must be met by the police agency prior to releasing the information requested.  There are also legal standards for the reporting of racial and/ethnic profiling that must be met by a police agency.
5.  “Improvement of police officer candidate recruitment, screening, training, and hiring practices including an analysis of policies concerning implicit bias, candidate diversity and candidate background checks; and” .  California POST has strict standards for the police hiring process.  Applicant have to pass a series of physical and medical exams, an intense multi phase psychological exam (which will expose the exact objectives you outlined), a polygraph exam, and an intense background check tho include behaviors that are seen from the time an applicant was a child to adulthood.  The criteria is so strict that most applicants fail the background, psychological exam or the polygraph, which disqualifies the applicant from proceeding with the hiring process.
6.  “Police Department budget appropriations” . The police department manager/chief has checks and balances for the budget process.  The police budget is overseen and approved by the city manager, the city treasurer and ultimately the city council.

It is my hope that after reviewing the summary of information provided, you can agree that there are many substantive and strict legal checks and balances already in place.   If we are to seek equity and accountability, then let’s demand that of everyone, including those who engage in behavior that is detrimental to the safety of our community.  As council members you took an oath to represent all members of our community and your constituents.  Creating a police oversight commission will only increase costs and decrease safety for our police officers and our community.

Thank you for your consideration,

Jesse Zuniga, Jr.

Antioch

 

To the Citizens of Antioch:

There are times in the world and nation when we must all stand together. This week is one of those times. We mourn the needless loss of George Floyd. As we focus on the unconscionable actions of the police officers in Minneapolis, we must condemn police brutality and racism in all forms. As we watch the protests, anger and frustration of our fellow citizens, we must acknowledge that these emotions are not new. That they are deeply embedded in the fabric of our country due to a history of racism and bias that has compounded pain over time. We have talked of change but see the repetition of death and hurt that has found no resolution.

I empathize with the suffering of the African American community. I acknowledge that their frustration is real, and I can feel the anguish of another needless death. I am willing to stand in protest of racism and injustice. I am willing to listen and cooperate as we strive toward solutions that will make our community safer for every citizen. We strive to live in a city that is open to everyone, a place that we can truly call home. At this time, we need to do better and we will do better.

I see what a lot of politicians are putting out – more rhetoric about the problem and how we can change. As Antioch’s Mayor, I’m not going to pontificate on the problem nor its solution. Why? Because I don’t believe all of us fully understand the horrors of racism as it is manifested institutionally through systems of disproportionality and exclusion.

Many of us never experienced it, or even worse, some continue to pretend it doesn’t exist. What I do know, is that the anger, frustration and rage in our community is REAL. I am not condoning the use of violence, but we as a community must acknowledge the reality of being marginalized and misunderstood because of skin color. Racism is a cancer that must be properly diagnosed and treated. Failure to do so will result in the demise of us all. Our communities deserve leaders that will stand up and speak out against any form of racism. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.

So, as your Mayor, I am not stating that I have all the answers but at this time I am willing to advocate. I want you to know that I am here, I stand with, by you and for you, and I’m willing to listen to what you have to say. I want to learn what it is like to walk in your shoes. I embrace you, and want to hear your thoughts on how we can make the city of Antioch a better place. A place that strives for the social, educational and economic equality for every resident. We endeavor to live and labor in a city that looks out for everyone, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, age or your social economic status.

I’m hoping that we can begin discussing racism, openly and honestly, together in townhalls across the city. We desire to accomplish this after the Shelter in Place has been rescinded. In the meantime, I welcome your thoughts, your comments, and any and all suggestions on how to move forward with this dialogue. We are ONE Antioch, with common hopes, common dreams, and common desires seeking to arrive at a common destination. I am available at mayorseanwright@gmail.com and look forward to your input. Thank you.

Please stay safe.

 

 

 

Mayor Sean Wright

Quotes Dr. Martin Luther King – “A riot is the language of the unheard.”

By Lamar Thorpe

I was a nine-year-old when I saw Rodney King viciously assaulted on Univision 34 in Los Angeles. I remember everyone seemed to be in disbelief, but I wasn’t sure why.

For a little over a year, the Rodney King beating and subsequent trial became part of our daily lives. As the days and weeks progressed, I was confused by the public’s outrage regarding the King beating. Having grown up in a Mexican foster home, discrimination towards Black people wasn’t always apparent to me. After seeing the video over and over on TV, I personally felt the police were just doing their job. Some of my peers expressed different sentiments, while others were indifferent.

After the verdict, my city literally went up in flames. School was cancelled. Some businesses closed. It snowed ash. We lived under a strict curfew. I can distinctly remember the smell of burnt charcoal, like what many Americans cities are experiencing today.

While my immediate family felt differently, how my community seemed to feel about Black people was clear. We talked about Black people like they were the scum of the earth — except those who entertained us on TV. As we saw it, Black folks were just lazy, living on government handouts, and prone to criminality. Therefore, as a young child, I believed Rodney King, nor I, deserved to be treated with dignity.

My lack of empathy stemmed from my deep seeded hatred for Black people. Obviously, retrospectively, I hated Black people because I always felt abandoned by Black people. I did not have Black parents, Black siblings, Black friends, or Black neighbors. Growing up in East LA, all I had was “la raza.” As a result, I was embarrassed to be Black, I hated being Black, and I certainly didn’t feel Black.

After I moved to New England, the world started to box me into Blackness, whether I liked it or not. I could feel people looking at me with suspicion. I could feel my senior chief in the Navy look at me as undeserving and lazy. I could feel white people’s discomfort in elevators. I could feel I did not belong in certain places, especially predominantly white establishments. This feeling is so overwhelming, you internalize it and move through life avoiding it.

It is not to say these forms of discrimination did not happen in East LA, but no one imagined I spoke Spanish; I was able to make them feel uncomfortable and turn it into a joke. The world outside of my sheltered East LA existence, however, was very different. And no matter how hard I wished away my Blackness, to the world, I was just another suspicious Black man. I bought a U.S. Navy license plate holder for my car in the event I would get pulled over by the police. I thought maybe just maybe they will see me as anything other than Black. It never failed but once.

To say the least, race in America is complicated. So, I’m not going to write pointless political platitudes that mean nothing to those seeking change and make white people feel comfortable. Instead, let’s be honest with ourselves. From peaceful protests and demonstrations to looting and violence, the consciousness of America is on full display all across this Nation. The fabric of this collective consciousness is laced with race as a concept, racism as an institution, and racist people. As a result, today, that conscious is angry, sad, disappointed, grieving, complicit, sorrowful, mad, enraged, willing to look the other way, unable to look the other way, and God only knows what else.

It’s the story of America, and it’s not always pretty. It can be downright stank.

Today, I’m 39 years old and a proud Black American. Three decades have passed since I first saw a “brotha” get brutally beaten at the hands of police. In those 3 decades, it hasn’t stopped. Here we are today, bearing witness to another unnecessary, cold blooded murder of George Floyd by police, Ahmad Aubery by wannabe police and so on. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once lamented, “A riot is the language of the unheard.” For three decades people have gone unheard. We’ve allowed this to fester in our consciousness long enough.

And now, our collective consciousness is being manifested by our young people in the streets of many cities throughout this country. They are fed up. I am fed up. You should be fed up. And, we all should be willing to acknowledge that the racist ideas we’ve been raised to believe created this moment.

As we move through this time, I’ll be expanding the focus of my “Community Conversations” to include youth voices and topics related to the current unrest. Join me in figuring out how we realize our aspirations of wanting to be a full just and fair society.

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa District Attorney

Today, Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton issued a statement regarding the murder of George Floyd:

“I am heartbroken and horrified by the murder of George Floyd and the other unjust deaths of Black men and women in this country. As the chief law enforcement official of Contra Costa, I took an oath to ensure justice for everyone under the law. The fight for justice does not end at the borders of our County or in our communities. We all have a responsibility to speak out against and eradicate injustices wherever we find them. The officers responsible for the murder of George Floyd must be held accountable.

The right to peacefully assemble and protest are a vital part of the fabric of this nation, and the majority of participants have been peaceful and even inspiring. I am disappointed that the righteous marches and gatherings are being infiltrated and hijacked by a small minority of people with other agendas. The individuals who are exploiting the pain, and the cause of so many in our community by committing acts of violence and destruction will be held accountable. We must not let the acts of the detractors deter us from the issue at hand. We must never stop working to eradicate racism and bring about systematic change throughout all systems, especially in our criminal justice system. I will continue to fight for criminal justice reform not only just in Contra Costa but throughout this nation.”

A Message from Chief Tammany Brooks:

Police officers swear an oath and have a duty to preserve the sanctity of life, and to protect and serve every member of the public with professionalism, integrity, and respect. The murder of George Floyd by the police officers in Minneapolis hurts my heart, and I extend my deepest condolences to George Floyd’s family and loved ones. If you know me, you already know how I feel. For those who don’t, and I say this without any reservations, I absolutely condemn the actions (and inactions) of those former police officers. They were revolting and deeply disturbing.

As the Chief of Police, I believe it is my responsibility to talk about these events with my officers, ask the hard questions, and reflect on our own values and efforts to ensure our Police Department operates consistent with the values and expectations of our community. Our ongoing desire and effort to provide fair and impartial public safety services to EVERYONE in our community is founded on honest and genuine community relationships.

On behalf of the dedicated men and women of the Antioch Police Department, we want our community to know that that our core values include: Integrity, Professionalism, Accountability, Openness and Sensitivity. Each member of our Police Department is expected to understand and reflect the meaning of these values in their day-to-day work.

The hiring process for anyone looking to become an Antioch Police Officer is rigorous. If you are a bigot, racist, or a bully, then you will not work for the City of Antioch. Continuous training is also a top priority, and includes proper use of force, interpersonal communications, fair and impartial policing, and de-escalation techniques. None of our Police Officers has ever been trained to kneel onto anyone’s neck, and ALL are required to intervene if they see another Police Officer acting in a dangerous manner or behaving improperly.

During my 25 years in this profession, I have seen my share of tragedy and improper policing. I understand the damage that poor leadership, misaligned organizational culture, and inadequate training can do to a community, a police department, and individual Police Officers. I know the trust and support of our community is not to be taken for granted. When issues do arise, they are investigated and addressed appropriately. This is my commitment to you. Always has been – and always will be.

Being a Police Officer is a difficult but honorable profession. I am proud of the men and women who serve and protect the City of Antioch day-in and day-out. Every day we strive to improve community relationships, increase transparency, and earn the public’s trust. You deserve it.

Sincerely,

Chief T. Brooks

Some churches to participate in civil disobedience this Sunday and open for services.

“Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights”… “the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship” – 5/19/20 US DOJ letter to Gov. Newsom.

By Allen Payton

Yesterday, Monday, May 25, 2020 – Memorial Day, the day we honor and commemorate those who died for our freedoms, some of which are seriously limited, right now – California Governor Gavin Newsom issued guidelines for reopening places of worship. At first, I was hopeful that he was doing something good in response to President Trump’s directive to all the governors and the directive to California from U.S. Attorney General William Barr and the Department of Justice, last week.

But the guidelines don’t really allow most places of worship to reopen. Why? Because they’re too restrictive, limiting attendance to just 25% of building capacity or 100 people whichever is less. Plus, Newsom is leaving it up to each unelected county health officer to approve of the guidelines or not.

Now, it’s worse because they’re allowing more and more businesses to reopen – which is great – but not the churches. Our officials already considered all the vice serving businesses, including all the locations of the nation’s top abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, liquor stores, and marijuana dispensaries essential. But not the churches or other places of worship. And as of today, the governor said barber shops and hair salons can reopen.

Which part of “shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise” of religion and the other First Amendment right of freedom of peaceful assembly, don’t our officials get?

Civil Disobedience

Following in the footsteps of the black Christian ministers who led the efforts during the civil rights movement, it appears some churches will be participating in some civil disobedience with the ministers leading the effort for their rights, when they hold services this next Sunday, May 31st in defiance of state and local orders. Those in attendance will probably only be issued citations and the maximum fine is $1,000, which they can collectively fight. Plus, with $0 bail, right now none of them will go to jail. Most likely only the ministers will be cited and fined. But who knows? The Lord does and we will see just how far the government officials will take this and just how much they want to continue this fight.

Time to Elect New Leaders

It’s definitely time we elected only those who agree that places of worship are essential, not only to those who attend, but society as a whole, and will actually uphold their oaths of office, in which they swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Event the CDC recognized that in the statement for its Interim Guidance for Communities of Faith, unlike our governor in the statement included with his guidelines. The CDC wrote, “Millions of Americans embrace worship as an essential part of life. In addition, we note that while many types of gatherings are important for civic and economic well-being, religious worship has particularly profound significance to communities and individuals, including as a right protected by the First Amendment. State and local authorities are reminded to take this vital right into account when establishing their own re-opening plans.”

What did the governor include in the statement about his guidelines? Just more warnings about how public gatherings can cause more deaths. That statement includes, “There have been multiple outbreaks in a range of workplaces, indicating that workers are at risk of acquiring or transmitting COVID-19 infection. Examples of these workplaces include places of worship, long-term care facilities, prisons, food production, warehouses, meat processing plants, and grocery stores.”

“Further, it is strongly recommended that places of worship continue to facilitate remote services and other related activities for those who are vulnerable to COVID19 including older adults and those with co-morbidities. Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing and group recitation negate the risk-reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing,” Newsom’s statement continues.

Nothing about our First Amendment rights which should be protected or that corporate worship or even churches being essential to at least some Californians or society as a whole.

Legal Efforts

We also need to support the legal efforts of those suing the state and governor to get the courts to force him to allow the churches to reopen. One way you can do that is by supporting the Center for American Liberty, based in San Francisco and led by my friend, attorney Harmeet Dhillon and her fellow attorney, Mark Meuser, a former Contra Costa resident. Read about their cases and make a contribution, here – https://libertycenter.org/pf/covid-19-litigation/.

Another lawsuit by churches in California against Newsom and the state, which was joined by Dhillon, lost last week at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 decision of a three-judge panel. Not surprising the judges who voted with the governor were appointed by Clinton and Obama, and the one judge that voted with the churches was appointed by Trump.

“These are emergency appeals,” Dhillon explained on Monday. “We filed for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court” in the recent case before the 9th Circuit.

“The DOJ sent a letter to the governor that his policies were discriminatory against churches,” she continued. “Today’s guidelines are still limiting. They’re totally arbitrary. There is no limit of 100 people for any retail establishment. Retail has a 50% capacity limit for some and none for others.”

“To tell people how they can worship, this is more unconstitutional and very problematic,” Dhillon added.

DOJ Letter to Newsom

In the DOJ letter to Newsom about “several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship” due to the governor’s stay-at-home order, as well as “documents relating to the California Reopening Plan” it states “Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.” USDOJ 5.19.20 Ltr. to Hon. Gavin Newson

“Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” the letter continues.

“Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3” of Newsom’s reopening plan, the letter explains. “However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified” in the decision of another case “in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship.”

“Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest…” the letter states.

It then refers to the recent case before the 9th Circuit and states, “Other decisions around the country…make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done.”

“We believe…that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.”

An email has been sent to the DOJ asking for their views on Newsom’s guidelines and if they comply with the May 19th letter. (Please check back later for updates to this column.)

Time for Action

It’s time for action and to stop living in fear, my friends. The governor’s guidelines are too restrictive and continue to clearly violate our God-given – the meaning of “unalienable” – and constitutionally protected rights of both freedom of religion and assembly. Until Newsom complies with the directives from the federal government, churches should feel free to reopen within the guidelines applied to nonreligious activities and businesses.

As the DOJ letter states, “Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines.” Local churches can do the same. We shall see if any actions are taken against the ministers and those who attend this Sunday’s services.

 

DOJ Letter to Governor Newsom

               U.S. Department of Justice 

Civil Rights Division

 

 

________________________________________________________________________________

 

Office of the Assistant Attorney General                                                                   Washington, D.C. 20530

May 19, 2020

 

The Honorable Gavin Newsom

Governor of California

1303 10th Street, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

 

Dear Governor Newsom:

We are writing to you to raise several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship in Executive Orders N-33-20 and N-60-20 and documents relating to the California Reopening Plan.

Of course, we recognize the duty that you have to protect the health and safety of Californians in the face of a pandemic that is unprecedented in our lifetimes. You and other leaders around the country are called on to balance multiple competing interests and evaluate the constantly changing information available to you about COVID-19, and make your best judgment on courses of action.

Attorney General William P. Barr recently issued a statement on Religious Practice and Social Distancing, in conjunction with a Mississippi case in which the Department of Justice participated regarding restrictions on worship. In the statement, the Attorney General emphasized the need to practice social distancing to control the spread of COVID-19. He also noted that temporary restrictions that would be unacceptable in normal circumstances may be justified. But, “even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers. Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity.” Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Laws that are not both neutral toward religion and generally applicable are invalid unless the government can prove that they further a compelling interest and are pursued through the least restrictive means possible. Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest, absent the most compelling reasons.

Executive Order N-33-20 (March 19, 2020) ordered Californians to remain at home except to engage in authorized necessary activities as laid out by the Public Health Officer at the time and as modified going forward. The Public Health Officer’s April 28 “essential workforce” list does not appear to treat religious activities and comparable nonreligious activities the same.

The list includes “faith-based services” but only if “provided through streaming or other technologies.” In-person religious services are thus apparently prohibited even if they adhere to social distancing standards.

The list of nonreligious workers who are not so restricted by the Executive Order and essential workforce list when telework “is not practical” is expansive. For example, the list includes “Workers supporting the entertainment industries, studios, and other related establishments, provided they follow covid-19 public health guidance around social distancing.” Likewise, “workers supporting ecommerce” are included as essential, regardless of whether the product they are selling and shipping are life-preserving products or not. This facially discriminates against religious exercise. California has not shown why interactions in offices and studios of the entertainment industry, and in-person operations to facilitate nonessential ecommerce, are included on the list as being allowed with social distancing where telework is not practical, while gatherings with social distancing for purposes of religious worship are forbidden, regardless of whether remote worship is practical or not.

Even more pronounced unequal treatment of faith communities is evident in California’s Reopening Plan, as set forth in Executive Order N-60-20 (May 4, 2020), and in the documents the California Department of Public Health produced pursuant to it, including the “Resilience Roadmap” (https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap/) and “County Variance Attestations” (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Local-Variance-Attestations.aspx). Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3. However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets, and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified in the Lukumi decision in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship. While it is true that social distancing requirements applied to places of worship may inevitably result in much smaller congregations than some faith groups would like, in our experience with other controversies around the country, many places of worship are quite content to operate at 15-25% of capacity in a way that allows for social distancing between family groups.

The Department of Justice does not seek to dictate how States such as California determine what degree of activity and personal interaction should be allowed to protect the safety of their citizens. However, we are charged with upholding the Constitution and federal statutory protections for civil rights. Whichever level of restrictions you adopt, these civil rights protections mandate equal treatment of persons and activities of a secular and religious nature.

We recognize that three U.S. District Courts have denied Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO’s) sought by plaintiffs against Executive Order N-33-20, Abiding Place Ministries v. Wooten, No. 3:20-cv-00683 (S.D. Cal. April 10, 2020) (no written opinion); Gish v. Newsom, No. 5:20-CV-755 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020); Cross Culture Christian Ctr. v. Newsom, No. 2:20-CV-00832 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2020), and one denied a TRO against the Reopening Plan, which is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 3:20-cv-865 (S.D. Cal. May 15, 2020) (oral transcript ruling). These TRO decisions do not justify California’s actions. The Abiding Place, Gish, and Cross Culture TRO decisions do not address the Stage 2 reopening, and South Bay United Pentecostal does not describe why worship services can be distinguished from schools, restaurants, factories or other places Stage 2 permits people to come together. Other decisions around the country have followed Lukumi to make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done. See, e.g., Robert v. Neace, No. 20-5465 (6th Cir. May 11, 2020).

Religion and religious worship continue to be central to the lives of millions of Americans. This is true now more than ever. Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines. We believe, for the reasons outlined above, that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you wish to discuss further, please contact United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California McGregor Scott at

(916) 554-2730 or mcgregor.scott@usdoj.gov.

Sincerely,

           Eric S. Dreiband

                            Assistant Attorney General

               Civil Rights Division

 

McGregor W. Scott

United States Attorney

Eastern District of California

 

Nicola T. Hanna

United States Attorney

Central District of California

 

David L. Anderson

United States Attorney

Northern District of California

 

Robert S. Brewer

United States Attorney

Southern District of California

 

cc: The Honorable Xavier Becerra

Attorney General of California

Dear Editor:

Please run this scathing letter that I wrote about my terrible experience in not getting a COVID-19 test late last week.

But the other part of the story is that it was not read into the record during Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. Instead it will be “shared” with the supervisors, according to Jami Napier, Chief Assistant Clerk to the BOS.

In an email response she wrote, “This email will be shared with the Board of Supervisors. We are not reading emails into the record at this time.”

I responded, “Shame on you!  The agenda states that written comments will be accepted before and during the meeting.  I feel that I am being marginalized by the county. I feel cheapened. I cannot even get a Covid test; and then you do this to me.  Written comments should also be read into the record. Bad!”

Board of Supervisors Chair Andersen:

The county is playing with the lives of citizens, especially seniors when the county announces free COVID-19 testing for anyone regardless of one’s health, and the county’s out of state telephone message service is unable to properly handle the avalanche of incoming calls. Shame on the county and the telephone service!

Thankfully neither I nor my wife have COVID_19 symptoms, but last Friday I was on the phone 7 hours futilely waiting to make an appointment to line up appointments for free COVID-19 tests.  No one answered my call.  Incredible!

Later that day I talked to Supervisor Federal Glover who confirmed with that the health department is swamped with calls and is working to resolve the issue. That’s all that he could do for me and my wife. What a bummer!

The problem is, what if someone like myself or my wife, really has COVID-19 symptoms?  What do they do then if they cannot make an appointment like I attempted to do?  I suppose the answers to those questions is, wait for one’s maker, death!

This situation is unacceptable. The county and supervisors should be held accountable and correct this problem now!

Sincerely,

Daniel & Leslie Borsuk  

Pittsburg