The following Open Letter was sent to the AUSD Board on Saturday, July 18 regarding the AUSD webinars of July 16, 2020 and Governor Newsom’s press conference of July 17, 2020

Dear Board Members and Others,

My name is Mark Hadox and I am concerned about the AUSD plans for using the hybrid model for the upcoming 2021 school year.

There are many ideas and various models of school re-opening and learning methods for 2021.

On Friday, Governor Newsom laid out mandatory guidelines for opening schools and closing schools. School openings will only happen upon general county-wide health criteria being met as well as specific school and district criteria.  Now AUSD must form a plan which works within the governor’s criteria and has the best chance of success.

After schools are permitted to open the governor’s plan calls for closing schools and returning to distance learning when any of the following conditions are met:

a) One person in a class with confirmed positive would cause the 14-day quarantine of those exposed to that person.

b) school reverts to distance learning when multiple cohorts have positive cases

c) or school reverts to distance leaning when 5% of students and staff test positive

d) district reverts to distance learning when 25% of schools have been closed

After 14 days under each condition the school may return to in-person instruction with the approval of the local public health officer.

How do those state mandated criteria apply to AUSD in real numbers?

From Wikipedia, there are about 17,000 AUSD students so with a student to teacher ratio of, say 27, the result is approximately 630 classrooms and 630 teachers and hundreds more specialty teachers, substitutes, and staffing.

When each of those 630 classes are split into two cohorts for in-class teaching that will be 1,260 cohorts, spread among 25 schools in the district, including two of our six high schools having about 2,000 students each.

Note, per Contra Costa Health on 7/17, the current positive countywide test rate is 8%.

Applying an 8% positive rate to cohorts of 13 students the result would be 1.04 positives, so it seems pretty clear that right off the bat many cohorts will meet the criteria for the immediate 14-day quarantine of that cohort.  Many more than one of the 1,260 cohorts in the district are certainly going to be affected early on in the school year.

Remember, even just two positive cohorts requires a school to revert to distance learning.

Also, an entire district closure happens when 25% of schools close, which would be 6 of AUSD’s 25 schools, it is readily apparent that a few positives will result in the district meeting the 6 school threshold to close the district quite quickly.

Even if the infection rate is cut in half to 4%, that is still about 700 positive throughout the AUSD population of students and staff.  It only takes as few as 2 positives to close a school and so as few as 12 positives can close six schools and thus the whole district.

The missing key to the governor’s positive test criteria is how will any school find out about any person’s positive test results?

Unless schools themselves test every person entering campus and maintain the results thereof, then the heath of everyone on site will be left up to parents reporting to the school the medical condition of their children. Certainly, the first thought of a parent with a sick child will be childcare and not to call the school to report it. And what about asymptomatic positives? Without testing they will never be found.

While we all want to return to the days prior to corona virus, we must keep in mind that our hope does not out weigh the fact that the corona virus is out there, people transmit it easily, unknowingly, and it will not stop simply because we wish it to.

It is also clear that even if a vaccine is produced, it will likely not be 100% effective and on top of that there may well be a large percentage of parents who will refuse it even if it were 100% effective.  That said, the new normal may be permanent distance learning for a large portion of our student population if, hopefully, being vaccinated becomes a requirement for in-class learning.  Developing a strong distance learning model is imperative.

AUSD needs to get real and go all in on distance learning now.  It is prudent to consider that the new normal for all of 2021 will likely be solely distance learning and to put all effort into making that model work.

Superintendent Anello said that many parents want in class teaching and that the social and emotional needs of the students are a major concern.  But in-class teaching may actually cause emotional harm, really.  Has it been explained to parents how in-class teaching will be done?  The students will be practically seat-belted into their chairs, they will not be able to touch anyone, share anything, or play in any groups, they even need to each their lunches alone at their desks.  They won’t be able to mix with their friends, before, during, or after school.  They will constantly be admonished to keep their masks on, don’t do that, stay over there, etc.

The governor requires that every school day, that  anyone entering the campus must receive and pass a health screen, what emotional toll will that take?  Will a student’s cohort’s parents be told that a classmate of their child didn’t pass the health screen, does AUSD plan to inform parents when that happens?  Since cohorts can’t be mixed, what is the protocol for when a teacher is absent?  Oh, and while the governor says that K-2 students are only encouraged to wear masks rather than being required to, mask wearing in public is required for everyone over the age of two, will AUSD require all K-12 students to wear masks?  The governor’s Pandemic Plan states that, “Over the course of the pandemic, most schools will likely face physical closure at some point…”, have the parents been informed that in-class learning will be variable and unpredictable at all levels from classroom, to school, to district?

I would really appreciate a reply to my questions, they are not rhetorical.

I believe that if all parents were provided with a clear picture of their child’s likely in-class learning experience and emotional challenges, that many of those parents who may have wanted in-class learning back in May would not feel that way now.

Sincerely,

Mark Hadox

Antioch Resident and Parent of AUSD graduates

OPINION

By Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

The assaults on California property owners and taxpayers never stop. And once again the California Legislature has advanced a massive tax increase at the last possible moment when they thought no one was paying attention.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11 (ACA11), approved by the California Legislature, takes away Proposition 13 protections that California families have under current law and replaces them with a billion-dollar tax increase. Voters will have an opportunity to reject this scheme come November, as ACA11 will appear on the ballot as Proposition 19.

After the historic passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, Californians finally had certainty about their future property tax liability because increases in the “taxable value” of property were limited to 2 percent per year. Property would be reassessed to market value only when it changed hands. To prevent families from getting hit with huge tax increases, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 58 in 1986, changing the state constitution to ensure that transfers of certain property between parents and children could occur without triggering the sticker shock of reassessment.

Under Prop. 58, a home of any value and up to a million dollars of assessed value of other property may be transferred between parents and children without reassessment. Proposition 19 (2020) would repeal Proposition 58 (1986) and force the reassessment of inherited or transferred property within families. The only exception is if the property is used as the principal residence of the person to whom it was transferred, and even that exclusion is capped.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the repeal of the “intergenerational transfer protections” guaranteed by Props. 58 and 193 will result in 40,000 to 60,000 families getting hit with higher property taxes every year. Prop. 19’s massive tax increase has been included in this initiative to offset another proposed constitutional change: the expansion of the ability for older homeowners to move to a replacement home and transfer their base-year property tax assessment from their previous home to the new property. While this “portability” expansion has some merit, voters rejected this idea in 2018. Oddly, the backers of the proposal think they can sell it again by adding a tax increase.

As ill-advised as Proposition 19 is as matter of policy, the contortions executed by the California Legislature to place it on the ballot were nothing short of bizarre. The primary sponsor of ACA11 was the California Association of Realtors (CAR) which first wrote a similar proposal as an initiative and gathered signatures to put it on the ballot. It appears CAR is motivated by the desire to churn more home sales, even at the expense of a multi-billion-dollar tax increase.

For reasons related to placating progressive Democrats in the Legislature as well as labor unions, CAR wanted to withdraw its previously qualified initiative and have the Legislature replace it with a similar tax increase proposal.

But something funny happened on the way to the ballot. CAR missed the constitutional deadline for withdrawing its initiative, so as a matter of law, it appeared that there would be two nearly identical measures on the ballot, causing confusion, not to mention additional costs. So, Secretary of State Padilla dutifully took the CAR measure off the ballot even though he had already certified it under the procedures set forth in the California Constitution.

Our current political establishment ignores all rules and laws when it comes to achieving a desired political end. And, as usual, the desired end here is billions of dollars in higher property taxes.

By Allen Payton

This year’s Independence Day, today, July 4, 2020 marks the 244th birthday of our nation. It was on this date in 1776 that our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence sending a message to England that we would no longer be ruled by their king, that we would be a sovereign nation and each of our citizens sovereign people, as well.

In Antioch, we also celebrate the 169th anniversary of the naming of our city, today. It was on this date in 1851, 75 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, that the townspeople gathered together with co-founder Rev. William Wiggins Smith to rename the town from Smith’s Landing to Antioch, after the city in Syria where the followers of Christ were first called Christians. They did that out of respect to Smith’s twin brother, Rev. Joseph Horton Smith who had died the previous year. In 1849, after traveling from Boston, the Smith brothers each purchased 160 acres from Dr. John Marsh along the Antioch waterfront, where the city’s historic, downtown Rivertown District is located, today.

According to the book entitled, Looking Back – Tales of Old Antioch and Other Places by Earl Hohlmayer, “On the fourth of July, 1851 a basket picnic was held at the residence of W.W. Smith, then standing on the high ground…The all-absorbing topic of the day was ‘What shall we name our town?’ Between thirty and forty men, women and children gathered together from far and near… W.W. Smith proposed that, inasmuch as the first settlers were disciples of Christ, and one of them had died and was buried on the land, that it be given a Bible name in his honor, and suggested ‘Antioch’, (a Syria town where two important rivers meet and where the followers of Christ were first called Christians), and by united acclamation it was so christened.”

A historic mural was commissioned by the Antioch City Council in the late 1990’s which includes a scene from the July 4, 1851 picnic which can be seen above. It’s located on the wall of the 505 Building next to the parking lot at F and W. Second Streets in Antioch’s historic downtown Rivertown.

Although our community, state and nation currently face health, economic and other challenges, the future looks bright and we can celebrate our freedoms, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, although somewhat restricted, lately. Enjoy celebrating and remember to thank God for the freedoms we get to exercise and experience each day in our country.

Happy Independence Day and may God continue to bless the United States of America. Freedom!

“Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.” Psalm 94:8

“Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’” Acts 5:29

By Allen Payton

As part of his new statewide health orders issued on Wednesday, July 1, California Governor Gavin Newsom included a new requirement that “*Places of worship must therefore discontinue singing and chanting activities” during worship services. (Note: The asterisk does not refer to anything else in the document) See https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship.pdf

Under the section entitled Considerations for Places of Worship it reads, “Discontinue singing (in rehearsals, services, etc.), chanting, and other practices and performances where there is increased likelihood for transmission from contaminated exhaled droplets.

The state’s document, entitled COVID-19 INDUSTRY GUIDANCE: Places of Worship and Providers of Religious Services and Cultural Ceremonies refers to the practice of one’s faith as “personal” as if it’s not supposed to be done in public, like other activities such as protesting.

“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 chanting negate the risk reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing,” the document reads.

However, in response after contacting county officials, leaders of Golden Hills Community Church, one of the larger churches in Eastern Contra Costa County with campuses in Brentwood and Antioch which will hold their first in-person service in 17 weeks on Sunday, July 5, shared with their members that singing while wearing masks will be allowed.

In an email on Friday, June 3 Senior Pastor Phil Ward wrote, “This week both the state and the county announced a ban on ‘singing and chanting’ in houses of worship. Since we now have the ability to gather for in-person worship, and since singing is an essential aspect of Christian worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), we found this prohibition unreasonable because it dictates what is permissible in worship. As a result, we reached out to the governing authorities to express our concern. In response, we were told that singing is permitted so long as masks are being worn—something we already planned to do.”

Although the sanctuary at their Brentwood campus has a capacity of 1,700 people and could easily accommodate 350 people while social distancing, the church will be following the limits of only 100 people per service. They will also utilize their former sanctuary, now used as a multipurpose room, which can also meet the state and county’s limitations of 100 people maximum or 25% of room capacity whichever is less. Finally, the church will be offering four services this Sunday and adding a fifth service, beginning next Saturday night, July 11.

Debate Over Following All Government Laws & Orders

International evangelist and San Francisco native Mario Murillo wrote this week in response to the governor’s order that Christians should not follow such laws or orders because they are evil and go against what God teaches His followers.

“I can’t think of a worse idea than to stop praise and worship because Gavin Newsom told you to,” he wrote. “It’s time to wake up to the sad truth that California has declared war on the church. Doesn’t the Bible tell us to obey them no matter what? Absolutely not. And it is shocking how many believers do not know their Bible or have been given false teaching. There is no verse in the Bible that tells you to obey evil government or laws.”

Many believers often quote a section in the book of Romans, chapter 13, verses 1-7 to support following the government’s orders: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore, you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”

However, Murillo quotes other Bible verses that offer the opposite perspective, that believers are only to follow rulers who aren’t evil and laws that aren’t evil.

“It seems to say that we are to honor government in every form, right? Wrong,” he wrote. “Lost in all the quoting of this verse on submission to government is the most important part: The description of the ruling authority.”

Murillo shares that description writing, “they are not a terror to good works” and “they praise good works.”

He also shared what Jesus said of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:3, “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, but do not do.”

“Do what they say, but don’t partake of their hypocrisy,” Murillo explains. “Watch them for that moment when they cross the line and come between you and your God.  Just as our conscience should drive us to obey the law, we should also know when our conscience tells us not to obey an evil law.”

“Here’s when Peter reached that tipping point, speaking to those very same Pharisees,” he continues, quoting Acts 4:18-20, “So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.’”

Murillo then quoted Acts 5:29 writing, “Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’”

Newsom’s Order is an Evil Law That Must Not Be Followed

“God not only does not endorse evil government: He will have no part in it,” Murillo continues. He then quotes Psalm 94:20 writing, “Can a corrupt throne be allied with you—a throne that brings on misery by its decrees? The wicked band together against the righteous and condemn the innocent to death.”

“There is your answer. A corrupt throne (government) cannot be allied with God,” he wrote. “In fact, evil laws are the worst form of sin. They provide legitimacy to evil.”

Murillo concludes by quoting German pastor, theologian, anti-Nazi dissident and Christian martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Wearing a Mask While Singing or Chanting Works

So, ordering followers, of at least Christianity and Judaism, to discontinue singing violates what God wants practiced during worship. As it is written in Psalms 98:4, “Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.” Therefore Governor Newsom’s order is an evil law that must not be followed. But, for safety’s sake the spirit of the order can be met by wearing masks while singing or chanting in church.

“the more we come together in groups, the more COVID-19 spreads in the community.” – Dr. Chris Farnitano

By Allen Payton

In a rather ironic announcement Thursday, with reports of COVID-19 spreading rapidly in many Bay Area neighborhoods, members of the Association of Bay Area Health Officers (ABAHO) representing thirteen jurisdictions, urge residents to protect themselves and the community by celebrating Independence Day while remaining at home, under what amounts to house arrest, during the July 4th holiday weekend.

The Fourth of July, the day on which we as a nation celebrate the declaration of our independence from the tyrannical rule of England’s King George III, with his oppressive regulations and taxation, is traditionally a time to celebrate with firework shows, parades and cookouts. But this year the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in many community leaders cancelling public events. Gatherings with others from outside your household, such as members of the extended family, are also considered potentially risky, according to the Association of Bay Area Health Officials (ABAHO).

Health officers from across the greater Bay Area say staying home this year is a healthy choice.

“Nobody wants to be cooped up, or to miss out on the holiday,” said Dr. Chris Farnitano, Contra Costa County Health Officer, a member of ABAHO. “But the more we come together in groups, the more COVID-19 spreads in the community. And the more it spreads, the more it endangers older adults and others at high risk of serious illness.”

So, instead of merely requiring those older adults and others at high risk to stay home, he wants all of us to.

“You can spread COVID-19 even if you don’t feel that sick,” the ABAHO explained in a their press release announcement. “You can pass the disease to someone else before you have symptoms, and even if you never develop any symptoms at all. When infected people come in contact with others who are high-risk, there can be deadly consequences.”

Those deadly consequences have so far amounted to 78 deaths out of 1,115,000 residents in Contra Costa County, or one death in every 14,300 people. Currently there are a total of 41 patients with the virus in our hospitals and not all of them are from our county. At the same time, some county residents who have tested positive are in hospitals in Alameda County. In addition, according to the Contra Costa Health Services Coronavirus Dashboard, as of today at 11:30 a.m. a total of 76,139 people have been tested in our county and 3,326 have contracted the virus. The good news is, to date, 2,311 who have tested positive in Contra Costa have recovered, which means there are currently 896 residents in our county who have the virus and should be staying home under self-quarantine.

Yet because of the risks they have outlined, Bay Area health officers recommend people who are not members of the same household remain physically distant. Unless you choose to follow the county’s guidelines for sexual activity, which can be found, here and recommend that “If you do have sex with others, have as few partners as possible.”

According to the ABAHO, the best ways to protect yourself and slow the spread of COVID-19 include:

• Continuing to stay home as much as possible
• Practicing physical distancing outside the home
• Wearing face coverings or masks when outside your home
• Avoiding gatherings with people outside your immediate household – (even though Contra Costa allows gathering in groups of 12 people, and as many as 100 if you’re attending an outdoor or indoor worship service or protest. So, be sure if you’re number 101 or more, to please leave and either worship or protest on your own.
• Washing your hands thoroughly and frequently
• Staying home from work, school or daycare if you feel sick

Bay Area residents who have symptoms are also encouraged to get tested for COVID-19, and to do so immediately. Check with your local health department for more information about testing and about efforts in your community to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. For more information, please visit cchealth.org/coronavirus.

ABOUT THE ABAHO

The Association of Bay Area Health Officials (ABAHO) represents health officers and other public health professionals from thirteen jurisdictions. ABAHO coordinates and communicates regional messages to save lives, promote and protect health, prevent injury and illness, and improve wellness in the region’s diverse communities. According to an article on CaliforniaHealthLine.org “The alliance, formally called the Association of Bay Area Health Officials, was born in 1985 in the early days of the AIDS epidemic.” That article, entitled “The Inside Story Of How The Bay Area Got Ahead Of The COVID-19 Crisis”, is dated April 21, 2020 a week after Contra Costa experienced it’s peak, so far, of 44 Coronavirus patients in county hospitals on April 14.

The members of the ABAHO and other government leaders have returned us to the days before 1776 with even more oppressive regulations than those of King George, III – who still allowed the colonists to freely worship, go to work, operate their businesses (unless they were seditious newspaper publishers), earn a living, and go about their daily lives – while instilling fear into the populace about the virus, as well as by releasing inmates from federal and state prisons, and county jails, and increasing the national debt in order to keep providing unemployment payments, grants and loans (with interest, further burdening business owners) to most, but not all those who qualify and have been approved, yet who are still waiting to receive even a penny from either the state or federal government, while at the same time allowing the homeless, protesters, looters, vandals, Antifa members, and CHOP and CHAZ residents to enjoy maximum freedom, in effect guaranteeing only to them the full exercise of the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights, while restricting most of the rest of us from enjoying them.

Enjoy celebrating your freedom on Saturday!

Dear Editor:

The following comments were submitted and read during the Antioch City Council meeting, Tuesday night, June 23, 2020:

Mayor and Council,

I cannot begin to express how disappointing it is to watch you work as a group. Dysfunctional does not begin to describe the Council as a whole.

The Council is constantly knee-jerk reacting to whatever event seems to be occurring on any one day.

First there is a curfew based on no real emergency but based on what you think might happen in Antioch. A real emergency is required. You sunset and defer to the county who then immediately

sunsets their curfew. Have any of you read the state and federal Constitutions?

Then you remove a planning commissioner based on comments made on his personal Facebook page. All of which I thought could have been better stated by the commissioner. But you react and make a First Amendment violation.

Then you move on to an immediate need to review the Police only to have some 700 people give you an ear full of “what are you all doing”. The play by some Council Members to gain control of the evaluation was precluded by a better decision here.

Have you learned nothing from your non-reflective reactions, recently?

Don’t you all understand that reacting is not being proactive? That responding doesn’t generally

produce a positive result. We don’t need your reactions; we need leadership. Reasonable, competent leadership; and we need it now.

Simply stated I’m not going to support any of you for re-election if I don’t see some major improvement in your actions and decisions between today and November.

Show us you have learned something from the past few months.

Mark Jordan

Antioch

Editor:

Antioch needs to reform its overall sworn police and operations! The police operations and its personnel are generally carried out and handled properly, but there definitely needs some improvements with both. I speak from my personal, vast 50 plus years’ experience, education, training, investigations, and facts (not preconceived ideas or popular notions)! That is about 75,000 hours of my public safety related investigations work.

In many of my investigations the absurd and unrealistic Police excuses for abusing and/or killing individuals that they claimed presented a danger to the Police, included – an unarmed completely naked man killed, an unarmed person running away from the Police killed, an unarmed person pulling up his pants killed, an unarmed driver backing up shot several times in the back of his head, an unarmed man dancing severely beaten and the K9 also sicced on him, an unarmed man furtively moved killed, an unarmed man holding a cell phone killed, an unarmed man hiding next to a vehicle killed, etc. In each of these cases the officers’ police department, and D.A.’s Office, who jointly investigated (to include in Antioch’s) claimed that the officer(s) acted properly, and no accountability was required.

Along with other cities Antioch’s public safety operations and police operations fall short in some areas. Antioch’s police abuses, misconduct, and even unwarranted serious injuries and killings of some of our civilians over the years warrants an honest review and correction, long overdue. It is my belief that over 95% of our sworn Antioch officers are good, honest, hardworking, and deserving of our support and individual recognition. The rest deserve to be individually disciplined, removed from the police force where appropriate, and even criminally charged whenever warranted.

I have also thoroughly investigated some Antioch police-contact incidents where civilians were physically abused, their constitutional rights violated (decided by the court), some killed, and even some were lied about in court. When the police and administration were informed about such then the wheels of injustices and cover ups commenced, including with former Police Chief Cantando who did little to nothing about it. This included where an Antioch black male was arrested, charged, and later further victimized in trials by an officer! Fortunately, he was quickly acquitted by the jury, and won a civil settlement from the city. I also believed and reported that the officer perjured himself in the case several times. When complained to former Chief Cantando he did little about it. And, some of those who were complained of were thereafter even promoted, and some have retired afterwards with higher rank and its related increased retirement pay.

I believe that if appropriate, required, complete, and thorough internal Police investigations had been carried out then those responsible would have been held accountable via various levels of discipline and accountability. When some of those Antioch Officers responsible were asked at depositions they revealed that they were not even asked about what they did until years later – just before they appeared under subpoena! It was and is within the Police Chief’s responsibility and authority to have initiated such, but the former Chief Cantando did not. If he had spent more efforts and energy on his Chief’s responsibilities, and less on his reported then personal efforts, then perhaps Antioch’s police operations and personnel would not need as much current reviews and changes now required. Antioch’s citizenry deserves better and rightfully now have risen and have demanded needed changes!

I have worked through current Chief Tammany Brooks over the recent past concerning information that I had received about some criminal events and those involved, to include gang members’ operations, drugs and guns trafficking, and gang killings occurring in Antioch. Fortunately, the current Chief Tammany Brooks properly responded and acted on those pieces of information and facts. I encourage every member of our community to communicate with our police and its management in efforts to address Antioch’s public safety environment. This includes supporting hiring more police, not having less as is mistakenly suggested, and improving its overall police personnel accountability.

I stand by my many public written letters and personal appearances over the years before the city councils supporting the police overall, and still do about most of such. I believe that no one has publicly done so more than I have over the years. That is a fact. And, I still believe that we need more Police manpower, and their budgeting needs to be reworked also!

Ralph A. Hernandez

Antioch

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.