Editor:

Antioch animals deserved better and now we at Antioch Animals Deserve Better are delighted to say things really are getting better at Antioch Animal Services!  It is the product of determination, tough decisions, and a lot of hard work.  And while there is more to do, progress at the shelter is significant, real, and continues in the right direction!

We would like to extend our enormous appreciation to Tony LaRussa’s Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF) for their expert guidance and willingness to step in to help Antioch, as well as coordinating with Maddie’s Fund for much needed funds to help the Shelter (thanks to you too, Maddie’s).

We would also like to express our gratitude to the Antioch City Council and the Mayor for their support of the Shelter and partnership with ARF.  And let us not forget the Shelter staff, volunteers, and rescue groups who stepped up to embrace change and are helping the animals through it all.

We want to especially thank and acknowledge Antioch’s new Police Chief Tammany Brooks for taking a real interest in the Shelter, educating himself about Animal Sheltering, and taking a no nonsense, open, and honest approach. The community sees your true leadership in many areas and it is making a difference.

And lastly, we want to thank all of you who supported the cause for the animals and positive change at the shelter.  Please see the recent GoFundMe update below from the incredible attorney whose generous pro bono work helped us. We have donated 100% of the funds to ARF towards their work at the Antioch Shelter.

Many positive changes are taking hold and good things are happening.

Kim Charef

Antioch

Antioch Animals Deserve Better

** GO FUND ME UPDATE **

Posted on Antioch Animals Deserve Better Facebook page 10-17-17 by Nancy Powell, Esq.

OVERALL SUCCESS – FUNDS TO ARF

ARF was brought in by the City of Antioch last fall and they have worked, guided and contributed mightily toward improving the Antioch Animal Shelter. It was through the pressure put on the Antioch City Council and the Council’s knowledge that folks like you demanded change that ARF got involved, so you can take credit with ARF for making things happen.

The Shelter is now working under different key individuals, is working to get a vet tech and a veterinarian to work there, has revised how often and when veterinary care is sought for the animals, has improved procedures and at the very basic level is a cleaner, nicer place to be stuck if you are an animal. ARF is continuing to work and guide the Shelter on issues that still need attention.

We demanded changes and the City got ARF involved. We were poised to go back into litigation mode if we did not see progress.

We believe that the funds that were donated to the GoFundMe campaign are no longer needed for litigation and should go to ARF to be used to further their great efforts in improving the Shelter. Therefore, the full amount collected in the GoFundMe campaign of $1,745 is being sent to ARF for this purpose. As long as the City continues to follow the guidance provided by ARF, things can only get better. If anything changes, we will update you.

Thank you for your support. It made a huge difference for the animals and the community.

Nancy V. Powell, Esq.

Editor:

You can thank Assemblyman Jim Frazier for that pain at the pump you’re feeling now that gas is an extra 12 cents per gallon.

Frazier and his fellow Democrats in Sacramento raised taxes $52 billion annually, including a 12 cents/gallon gas tax hike, 20 cents/gallon diesel gas tax hike and a $25-$175 vehicle fee increase. The average household will be paying an extra $600 a year.

Frazier not only voted for the tax-hike legislation, but sponsored his own version of the tax-hike bill, Assembly Bill 1. So it’s no surprise that Frazier once again received an “F” on his legislative report card from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. He voted in favor of taxpayer interests only 16 percent of the time on 22 tax bills in 2017.

This makes the fifth year in a row that Frazier, whose campaign slogan is “People before politics,” has received an “F” from HJTA for putting politics before people when it comes to their taxes.

Unfortunately, Frazier is not alone – a record 79 legislators flunked the tax scorecard. “By approving major new burdens on middle class taxpayers, the current crop of Sacramento lawmakers is exhibiting an outright hostility to the taxpayers who pay the state’s bills,” said HJTA President Jon Coupal.

How bad is the hostility? State lawmakers this year proposed $373.4 billion in higher annual taxes and fees, according to the California Tax Foundation. That’s nearly $200 billion more than the total taxes and fees annually collected by state government.

When will it end? Only when taxpayers decide they’ve had enough and stop sending taxaholics like Frazier to represent them in Sacramento.

Dave Roberts

Oakley

Dear Editor:

As a lifelong resident of Antioch and product of AUSD I find the past few days befuddling. It seems most people see that there is and are problems within our school district. Each person has their own solution which probably hits closest to home for them. Truth be told, there are many issues within our School District that needs to be addressed. So the crux of the matter comes down to this….which do we address first and where can we get the best bang for our buck.

Yes, spending up to $75K sounds like a lot of money especially if it is in one of our own personal bank accounts. When compared to a budget of $266 million, it is approximately 0.028% of the budget. Then, take into account that around 50% of the school districts have public relations persons allocated in their budgets that run on average of $180,000 per annum once all taxes and benefits are accounted for. In my simple math that I try to live by it appears they are getting the same function for $0.41 on the dollar. As a resident and person with children in the school district this is exactly the kind of forward thinking I want to see from the people in charge of the money.

As far as my understanding with this and I could be wrong – it happens – the purpose and target audience is not the general public but the actual parents and students. This is to let them know what positive items as well as events are coming to their school, adjacent schools in the district and what is to come as events and timelines. There are roughly 17,000 students which in turn makes roughly 34,000 parents (once again simple math) for an aggregate of 51,000 people. This brings the amount being spent to roughly $1.47 per student and parent. For me as an involved parent I see this as a good investment to be informed what is going on with my child’s school as well as other schools in the district, because the bad items are all over social media and easy to find.

Then I step back and think, what if I was one of the parents that has to commute 1.5 hours to work each day or has to work two jobs to make ends meet, then the $1.47 per person seems to be almost nothing to be informed as to what is going on in the school district. With that said by doing the same math the district has around $15,647 to spend per student per year in totality. This $1.47 would represent 0.009% of that money. In my opinion for AUSD to spend this per year is money well spent.

As I stated in the beginning yes, there are many issues to be addressed and there are many ways to address them. This is just one. I see this as an investment in pride in the school and its students while informing the parents. It is like anything. If all you are told is negative comments, then you have a negative opinion or mindset. When the positive is added to the negative at least a true perspective is able to be held. This is not a cure or fix. It is a beginning to curing the plethora of issues that face every school district.

Kenny Turnage

Antioch

Editor:

AUSD is one of the worst performing school districts in the county if not the state. But rather than devote $75,000 to improving performance, it’s wasting it on a doomed-to-fail, lipstick-on-a-pig propaganda effort to pull the wool over parents’ and taxpayers’ eyes about how great things are going.

It’s particularly ironic that one of those chosen to put a happy face on the district, Mike Burkholder, has a history of divisiveness, hostility and negativity toward critics, journalists and politicians in his online postings.

For example, here’s what he posted on a Facebook site called “Boycott the Contra Costa Times” about an East Bay Times reporter (https://www.facebook.com/pg/Boycott-the-Contra-Costa-Times-121667354561835/community/?ref=page_internal): “You can now add Rowena Coetsee to the list of reporters not to speak with. ECCFPD Should Boycott Rowena Coetsee Immediately I am not one to call on boycotts very often, but I have had enough of Rowena Coetsee’s bad reporting in Oakley and now it’s carried over to the ECCFPD today as she broke the cardinal sin of jou… BURKFOROAKLEY.WORDPRESS.COM”

Burkholder also has numerous postings vilifying East Bay Times columnist Dan Borenstein because Borenstein has been critical of excessive pension benefits for firefighters. Burkholder also participated in a boycott of an Antioch Herald AUSD candidates forum.

By hiring Burkholder as a press representative for the school district, AUSD has declared war on the East Bay Times, the Antioch Herald and the press in general — and by extension the public that they are seeking to objectively inform about their government.

Dave Roberts

Oakley

Roberts periodically reports for the Herald.

Editor:

Following is a letter sent to Antioch Unified School District Superintendent Stephanie Anello last week:

Dear Superintendent Anello,

We respectfully disagree with your proposal of spending $75,000.00 school funds, as well as the “yes” votes of Trustees Gibson-Gray, Hack, and Ruehlig on this matter.

We thank you for trying to use school money “wisely” and for your work on attempting to get our school district on track.

My husband and I have been AUSD parents since 2005, we’re appreciative that our children have access to quality education. All teachers we’ve encountered, dating from 2005 to today are intelligent and caring with a strong will to see their students succeed.

It’s our observation that our wonderful teachers aren’t provided the full support they need. We, parents/guardians, district leaders and staff must fulfill our obligations, so our teachers can focus on teaching. We feel the demands placed on them are unfair and unrealistic. We are asking too much – that they uphold rigorous instruction; that they provide peer-like support; that they nurture their classroom like a household; that they become counselors and therapists … all of which we expect them to do equally and simultaneously. In addition, it’s important to note that Students’ familial background plays a major role on behavior and academic performance which further amplifies the demand on our teachers.

The troubles of our district aren’t its negative image, it’s the crumbling support from district leadership to teachers which then dominos to students-parents/guardians. Such discord creates negative narrative that spreads in the community and beyond. Chasing a positive image through social media will not solve the problem. The problem is what’s causing the negative image in the first place.

We urge you to kindly reconsider the allocation of the $75,000.00 amount, please if it’s not too late.

Here are some thoughts we had, but we’re sure our community also has pertinent suggestions on how $75,000.00 of school funds can be better utilized within our schools.

1. Hiring a well-established firm to survey the needs of our teacher through anonymous polling.

1a. Pouring attention and continuing / building genuine collaboration toward a resolution.

2. Offering a bonus to a current district office employee serving within the public relations department to manage photo and media updates.
3. Offering parenting support to parents/guardians by a licensed mental health and family professional.
4. Increasing teachers’ stipend and/or giving year-end bonus.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

April Ussam-Lemmons

Joshua Lemmons

Antioch

Editor:

Don’t be fooled by “green energy” or “renewable energy” groups like Marin Clean Energy and others. It’s simple economics. When you add “middle men” in to the mix, you add additional costs because you’ve not created any more customers nor produced any electricity. Not only that but their “Renewable Energy Credit” system is deceiving. Get the facts. It’s not easy but here it is. These are the facts.

Community Choice Aggregates (CCA’S) including Marin Clean Energy (MCE) are unwilling OR unable to sign the Power Purchase Agreements necessary to generate the renewable power needed by the State to reach our Renewable Portfolio Standards goals (RPS).  In fact, there are currently several solar projects that have been fully approved, permitted (with Project Labor Agreements (PLA’s)) that have not begun construction because nobody is signing the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).  PG&E and the other Utilities, including public utilities like SMUD, have already bought all the power they need to meet the 2020 requirement of 33% RPS.

But the CCAs are NOT signing these agreements.

If we don’t build these projects now, as a State, we lose the benefit of the Federal tax credits (set to reduce to 10% in 2019) which means power costs go up.  It also means that MCE rates will go up noticeably while PG&E’s will remain moderate because of all the cheap long-term contracts they have signed the last 5 years.  MCE signed some of these, but the term is 3-5 years, not 15-20.

There was also a big conversation at the California Energy Commission about the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA*), which is the cost sharing mechanism that the CCAs are supposed to pay to compensate PG&E for the power PG&E bought under long term contracts for its customers that the CCAs have stolen.  Everybody, including the President of the CPUC, acknowledged that this PCIA is not accurately apportioning that cost.  PG&E showed that MCE is paying only 65% of what it owes every month.  That means you and I are subsidizing MCE customers.

*The PCIA ensures that the customers who remain with the utility do not end up taking on the long-term financial obligations the utility incurred on behalf of now-departed customers. Examples of such financial obligations include utility expenditures to build power plants and, more commonly, long-term power purchase contracts with independent power producers.

MCE and the other CCAs will have significantly higher rates (as much as 25%) than there rates today.  This means some customers will leave and threaten the ability of CCAs to operate.  Plus, their promises of cleaner energy are being proven false.

Michael DuPray

Oakley

Editor:

The disguised and masked Antifa, other radical groups, and individuals must be dealt with immediately by the police when they appear to just terrorize, injure, vandalize, and overall break the existing laws.

They arrive united in purpose, similarly disguised, and with covered faces so they won’t be identified. Our California Penal Code laws clearly make it illegal to; Conspire together (PC 182), Wearing  Mask Or Disguise (PC 185), Assault (PC 240), Batter (PC 242), Assault With A Deadly Weapon (PC 245), to Terrorize/Threaten (PC 422 and/or 11411), Riot (PC 404), Incite To Riot (PC 404.6), Rout (PC 406), Unlawfully Assemble (PC 407), Participating In Rout Or Unlawful Assembly (408), Public Disturbance (PC 415), Threatening With Weapon (PC 417), Vandalize, Damage Or Destroy (PC 594), and so on.

And, it’s unlawful also for the police to willfully not suppress a Riot or Route (PC 410). In addition, any of their superiors who order them to not take action are guilty also.

So, the answer to all of their lawlessness is quite simple. Just enforce the laws immediately and shortly these things will cease considerably. There is your answer.

Ralph A. Hernandez

Antioch

By Colin Schwartz, Nutrition Policy Associate, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)

On Friday, Aug. 25, Food and Drug Commissioner Scott Gottlieb made it clear that calorie labels on menus are here to stay for all Americans. As Politico put it, “In the era of President Donald Trump’s war on regulations, one Obama-era rule — menu labeling — appears to be surviving.”

Unfortunately, a bill (H.R. 772) is working its way through Congress that would gut these menu labeling requirements, and undo recent progress toward giving Californians the information they need to make healthy choices about what to eat and what to feed their families. Now that the Trump Administration has affirmed it won’t delay menu labeling any further, it’s time for Congress to abandon this misguided effort. We are asking Rep. Jerry McNerney, who represents a portion of Antioch in the House of Representatives, to take a strong stand for informed consumer choice by opposing H.R. 772.

California’s adult and childhood obesity rates have steadily increased every decade since 1990, despite having the fifth lowest adult obesity rate in our nation. The rate also varies by community – currently, 77 percent of Latino adults are obese or overweight. California’s Department of Health Care Services has recognized that despite California’s best efforts, “obesity is clearly a significant driver of health problems and healthcare costs.”

Every Californian should have the information they want and need to choose healthy food for their families. Unfortunately, Congress is intent on curbing the freedom of consumers by denying them basic information about what they are ordering in restaurants. They also seem set on undoing California’s progress by scuttling the menu labeling law through the so-called Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act (H.R. 772). – Please see the comparison chart by the CSPI below. This bill ignores the reality that our nation’s top 50 restaurant chains have already committed to empowering consumers by including calorie counts at their locations across the country. Additionally, an independent economic analysis already found that the FDA’s decision to delay the enactment of the rule by one-year could already cost consumers an astounding $15 for every $1 saved by industry. Now imagine the damage H.R. 772 could have on consumers and our economy if signed into law.

This bill is contrary to Californians’ preferences. California passed the first state menu labeling law in our nation in 2008 to support and protect consumer choice. Since the signing of the legislation, California-based chains from California Pizza Kitchen to Taco Bell have shown that menu labeling can be accomplished without sacrificing customer satisfaction.

As Adam Russell of Santa Cruz, CA wrote in response to the FDA delaying implementation of the final menu labeling rule: “People deserve to be able to make informed choices.”

We all must remain vigilant not just about congressional efforts, but the FDA’s final guidance on the menu labeling rule later this year to ensure that the consumer-choice spirit of the rule remains intact. Unfortunately, anti-consumer industry groups and some corporate interests are lobbying Congress hard and against public will to deny Americans choice on a host of critical nutrition issues, including this one. It will only get worse now that the FDA didn’t decide in their favor.        

The bill is moving quickly. It has already passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee with Rep. McNerney voting in favor of it and is headed to the House floor (and possibly to the Senate) for a vote, possibly this or next week. 

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has been providing advice and advocacy toward a healthier food system since its founding in 1971. They publish Nutrition Action Healthletter and NutritionAction.com and lead action across the country on nutrition, food safety, and health.