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

Dear Editor:

Long after the Coronavirus secures history book infamy, we hope that practical lessons endure from the trials and tribulations.  We know, after all, that to ignore history is to condemn oneself to repeat it. Collectively, then, we need an organizational health infrastructure reset button and, individually, we need a self-accounting of our everyday habits and mindsets.

Consider first our investment priorities. The U.S., on average, spends 186.6 billion dollars a year on counter-terrorism measures. By contrast last year we allocated a billion dollars for pandemic prevention. Consequence? Congress has now pumped trillions for economic stimulus recovery. Go figure it.

Global accountability is in order.  China, for one, must confront the issue of transparent case reporting. Granted, this is a a novel virus and it’s easy to finger-point but the W.H.O, CDC. NIH and whole assorted alphabet soup of mega health organizations demand serious self—examination, on where the ball got dropped. National and regional and state governments, too, must evaluate why the world response was a dollar late and a day short.

Face it, we are woefully unprepared with our global health infrastructure and therefore sitting on a time bomb. Remember, this could be just a preview.   As a human race we are inextricably inter-connected thru easy travel, instant digital communication, and global markets. This pandemic should amplify our awareness that an outbreak anywhere is, in fact, an outbreak everywhere.  We’re literally one air passenger away.

Individually, too, we each play a part in world health as a fence is only as strong as its links.

SOCIAL JUSTICE: Do we blithely accept a health system that leaves tens of millions uninsured; or do we join the 21st century?

REDIRECTED ATTENTION:  Do we continue to support the effect-not-the-cause philosophy of pharmaceuticals or do we vigorously commit to a prevention approach to combat our raging national epidemics of diabetes, obesity, heart disease and hi-blood pressure.

PRIORITIES: Do we show indifference for Mother Earth’s fragile ecosystem; or do we act as mindful stewards of our priceless inheritance?

VALUES:   Do we worship the fleeting Almighty Dollar above all else; or do we instead seek the imperishable currency of God, family and country?

Yes, by any measure this pandemic is a gruesome ordeal, but we have to be open to grow, learn and extract lessons from it. The fabled evangelist Vance Havner said, “God uses broken things. It takes broken soil to produce a crop, broken clouds to give rain, broken grain to give bread, broken bread to give strength. It is the broken alabaster box that gives forth perfume. It is Peter, weeping bitterly, who returns to greater power than ever.”

Walter Ruehlig

Antioch

Dear Editor:

Recent activities brought a flurry of insights and observations which again has divided our City. It is great to be on the sideline at times seeing the arrows fly to and from. The division of community and most of all, reacting to what is considered was with cause. It is particularly important before you attest one’s character, you ensure that you are in the correct position to do so.

The public spoke adamantly for and against this commissioner. The public, many of them constituents of those elected, brought their concerns in during this emergency, public meeting and in private to the mayor and/or councilmembers.

There are two questions which were not brought forward by our city council or staff. These questions bring forth a bigger issue than that of what transcended on social media.

Appointments are not elected positions and as such, we rely on those elected to best review candidates interested in openings throughout the City. When an appointee has had financial ties to the City in which there was financial gain, the candidate should not be considered. When a commissioner is already in a seat of authority, the mayor should remove the commissioner immediately. This is to ensure the commission is unbiased.

Therefore, the first question is: why did the mayor and city council allow a commissioner whose had financial ties with the City to remain in a role of authority?

During council discussion with the city attorney, there was a question implied but sadly not stated well. The question brought forward was in the area of training. I believe the question better stated is, have all commissioners taken a Social Media Code of Conduct program in which there is a test to ensure they understand the implications of any conduct not aligned to their role would then lead to their immediate removal?

In today’s world, it could be blurry to understand one’s view as personal to one that of an appointed role. City staff noted there is a three-day conference where commission members attend which outlines their roles and what is expected of them. But the real question should be, did this commissioner complete the City of Antioch Code of Conduct program?

Furthermore, does the City of Antioch have a Code of Conduct program for their employees, elected official and appointees?

I am not providing an approval or condemnation of this commissioner. I can however state that if you’re going to shame a person, do so with a clean conscience knowing that you provided the tools for their success or they decide to take another path.

If you continue to pull back the layers on this subject and those involved, there will be more to discover which will cloud and divide this City even further.

Sincerely,

Gil Murillo

Antioch resident

EDITOR’s NOTE: During their special meeting on Friday night the Antioch City Council limited public comments to just one minute each from their regular three minutes. Former Antioch Police Chief had prepared three minutes of comments. Following are his complete comments:

“Good evening.

I am Allan Cantando and as you know, I am the Retired Antioch Police Chief –having served Antioch for over 29 years.

I am advocating that the Council refrain from removing Mr. Turnage from the Planning Commission due to a personal opinion he shared on his personal Facebook Page. If you remove Mr. Turnage, I believe you are violating his First Amendment rights.

The Staff report says, ‘The Chair of the Antioch Planning Commission posted a social media communication that does not represent the City of Antioch or the City Council.’  At no time did Mr. Turnage make a nexus to his volunteer position with the City of Antioch or even mention the City in any way.

Next, it is noted ‘The City Council and the public, through comments, emails and phone calls have questioned the ability of the Chair of the Antioch Planning Commission to represent them and many Antioch residents have called for the Commissioners resignation or removal.’

It appears on its face, that a Brown Act violation may have occurred and I am requesting the City Clerk to report this to the proper authorities. I would ask, how many people complained? Today’s ECT (eastcountytoday) article showed photos that were on Council Member Thorpe’s Facebook Page that appear to be mocking or advocating for Human Trafficking, and another, objectifying women. He has since taken these down. However, I would ask, do those represent the values of the City Council and the City of Antioch? How many people have to call in for Mayor Wright to ask for Thorpe’s resignation? This is a slippery slope and I am asking this council to refrain from going down it. Why? Because like it or not, Mr. Thorpe had a right to post his personal preferences and opinions on his personal page. Additionally, you cannot hold yourselves to a lower standard than you for unpaid city volunteers.

Let’s call this what it is…a political attack on Mr. Turnage because he has been critical of this Council on many occasions. Most recently he was vocal about this council not providing more Measure W monies to fund the hiring of police officers. In addition, this is politically motivated because Mr. Turnage has announced a possible run for the City Council seat that Ms. Wilson currently holds. A certain faction of the City Council are concerned that Mr. Turnage will get Ms. Wilson’s seat because in her two terms in office, she has done very little and was unable to fulfill her campaign promise of building up Antioch’s economic vitality. Ms. Wilson has spent a great deal of time piggy-backing on the Red Sand project that is a police department function combating Human Trafficking which Mr. Thorpe apparently thinks is funny. I don’t recall Ms. Wilson asking for his resignation, but I guess Mr. Thorpe is not running against her in the next election.

While I do not agree with the personal opinion Mr. Turnage posted, he has a constitutional right to express it –especially when it is not in his capacity as a member of the planning commission just as Mr. Thorpe has the same constitutional right to post undignified pictures on his personal Facebook Page that I might find offensive; it doesn’t go both ways.

Do the right thing. You have already most likely broken laws related to the Brown Act. Please do not compound this by violating a person’s constitutional first amendment rights and furthermore abusing the power given to you by the citizens of this city.”

Need to slow down, not overreact, instead censure and give him a second chance, and focus on what’s more important by actually helping those they claim to care so much about

I was always taught actions speak louder than words.

The Mayor of Antioch and three council members have rightfully expressed their disdain over what Planning Commission Chair Ken Turnage, II wrote on his Facebook page, last Thursday, about lifting the shelter-in-place order knowing that some of the more vulnerable in our community might die. They have scheduled a special meeting Friday night (tonight) at 7 p.m. to consider voting to remove him, not as chair but from the commission completely. One of those groups Turnage referred to in his comment is the homeless in Antioch. (View the meeting on the City’s website by clicking here).

I too found his comments unacceptable, especially for a public official and one considering running for public office. I agree with someone who commented on his post basically writing, why can’t we do both, end the shelter in place and do our best to protect the most vulnerable among us? I believe we can.

But what’s more important, words that hurt people’s feelings and if implemented could hurt people or the lack of action that’s actually hurting people?

While it’s easy for council members to be appalled and sanctimonious, labeling his comments disgusting and abhorrent, what’s more disgusting and abhorrent is taking votes to approve spending over $500,000 and apply for and receive five Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) trailers to help and house the homeless, appearing to be doing something, raising the hopes of that group of vulnerable people in our community, but in reality doing little to nothing to actually spend that money or place the trailers and move some of the homeless in to actually help them?

The council voted unanimously in December to approve the expenditures, and to hire an unhoused resident coordinator, fund motel vouchers, and portable toilets among other things. But, to date, according to City Manager Ron Bernal very little of the money has been spent.

There is no motel voucher program to get the homeless out of the wet and cold of the winter. Yet, here we are now in a time of better weather. Also, no unhoused resident coordinator has been hired. They did hire a homeless consultant who is supposed to help the council and city staff rewrite the Request for Proposal to hire the unhoused resident coordinator. But, the new RFP hasn’t been sent out, yet.

So, after months of meetings by the ad hoc committee, council discussion and votes, and then all the fanfare over the delivery of the FEMA trailers, nothing has really been done or money spent to actually help the homeless in Antioch.

Yet, now the mayor and council members are more concerned about the words of a planning commissioner they find hurtful and want to take an urgent, overreaction of removing him from his position.

Why is that?

Let’s remember, this is an election year, and for the first time, possibly ever in our city’s history, all five members of the council are up for re-election. Furthermore, Turnage might run against the incumbent, Council Member Monica Wilson, who first called for his removal and who went so far as to inject slavery into her condemnation, hinting at a racial motive behind the commissioner’s comments, irresponsibly stirring up racial division in our community. Her comment must also be denounced.

Plus, the council members claim they are receiving many emails and phone calls from residents calling for his removal. So, in order to protect their own political skins, they’re willing to sacrifice someone who has done great service to our community for many years, even to the point of being honored as Antioch’s Citizen of the Year for Most Impact in 2015 (see related article) over a one-time comment he wrote.

With all due respect to Turnage, he isn’t the most eloquent speaker or writer. He’s not a politician. He’s a local business owner, a general contractor who has not only been affected by the shelter-in-place, but whose building where his offices are located has been broken into, and homeless jumping the fence and using his property to camp on. Turnage is understandably upset. But he should have done a better job choosing his words and recognizing the hurt feelings his “survival of the fittest” viewpoint caused and the hurt they literally could cause if implemented.

What needs to happen is the council should, instead vote to censure Turnage for his comments and give him the opportunity to publicly apologize. They should give him a second chance and not simply participate in the silencing of those with whom we disagree, as is happening on social media by the big tech firms, and is called for by the overly sensitive in our society, looking for some reason to be offended.

Then Turnage needs to apologize and put this all behind us, then leave it up to the voters to decide in November, should he choose to run for city council.

If he doesn’t make a public apology by next Thursday, the day the agenda for the council’s next regular meeting on May 12th is finalized and distributed, then the mayor can choose to include a vote for removal. But a vote to censure Turnage should be enough.

The council members need to make sure they’re not taking a vote based on politics and what might happen to them in the next election. They need to not be finger in the wind politicians overreacting to the views of some members of the public.

Most importantly, the council members need to take action, and start spending the money to actually help the homeless in Antioch whom they claim to care so much about.

Words are one thing. Actions speak louder.

Messsage from the County Health Director

For all of us caught in the midst of this unprecedented pandemic, life has changed fundamentally. How we socialize, learn, exercise, dine and work has been reshaped entirely in the course of just a few weeks. That level of change, combined with the inherent health concerns related to COVID-19, has created levels of stress and anxiety typical of war zones. Combine all that with the frustration of not knowing when this might end, how we will all be impacted and what a post-COVID-19 world will look like and you might expect fractures in our community.

But we’re not breaking apart. In fact, as I look around, I see a community that is pulling together in many different and powerful ways. Yes, we’re all under immense stress, but Contra Costa County has risen to the challenge, showing a level of respect, cooperation and involvement that is simply remarkable. It’s too early to predict the future, but one thing I do foresee is Contra Costa County emerging from all this with pride for modeling a remarkable level of civility and leadership.

It’s these increased acts of community participation that make it possible for Contra Costa County Health Services to respond in a coordinated, science-based and thoughtful manner to this crisis. The health department’s purpose is to protect and preserve life. We prepare and practice for mass emergencies on a regular basis—earthquakes, fires, disease outbreaks and other disasters. It is our obligation to be prepared even for a once-in-a-century pandemic. And now, with COVID-19, our purpose inspires and drives us to balance the need for extreme caution with a respect for your need to live as normal a life as possible in the face of this crisis.

As one of the first states to see COVID-19 cases, California could well have faced the same catastrophic impacts that other states are now experiencing. However, because of the courage and foresight of health and government officials in Contra Costa County and the entire Bay Area, we took strong and immediate action. Issuing one of the nation’s first region-wide shelter in place orders, the Bay Area slowed the spread of this unprecedented threat to prevent the crushing demand on hospital resources, which prevented illness and death. None of this is possible without the understanding and cooperation of all of you. Your willingness to alter your lives in ways we know are disruptive is vital for the health and well-being of the entire community as well as the safety of our essential workers.

Part of what’s made our response effective thus far has been the cooperation and coordination of the entire county government apparatus. From our Board of Supervisors and County Administration to the multiple different county departments, we are seeing an unprecedented level of alignment and action. Separate departments are sharing resources, staff expertise and contacts to make sure that the county’s response is as comprehensive and coordinated as possible. By the same respect, the county’s 19 cities are partnering closely with all of these efforts to magnify our reach, impact and efficiency. This has been a true example of a whole government response to support and protect the people of Contra Costa County.

Rightly so, there has been a lot of focus on the amazing individuals on the front lines of this epidemic – our healthcare workers, medics, police, fire and many more. As the county’s health director, I have never been more inspired in my entire career than to work with doctors, nurses, clinicians, lab workers, disease investigators, community health workers, registration, administration and custodial staff and countless other essential workers who have never once questioned their responsibility. Instead, they come to work every day dedicated to protecting and preserving lives in our county. It is humbling to witness this level of commitment to others. And for every worker that is responding on the multiple front lines of this pandemic, there’s a team of support staff working to make sure they have the materials, protection, data, information, and expertise they need so they can focus their attention on the work of helping people get and stay well.

The other day, I was on my way to a field health care site we have prepared. As I was driving, I saw a gathering of people at a local school. With masks and gloves on, dozens of volunteers had shown up to distribute food to their neighbors, friends and strangers who are feeling some of the greatest economic impact of this pandemic. As I passed the group I was filled with gratitude. I believe this deep sense of community and connection is part of what makes us resilient and will take us forward to greet the days ahead.

Many thanks for all the ideas, feedback and information so many of you have shared with Contra Costa County Health Services. Your input is helping us to improve each day. Thank you for your continued support of our health department and each other.

Wishing you all safety, health and wellness

Anna Roth, RN, MS, MPH