Editor,

I am writing to share my enthusiastic support for Joy Motts, candidate for the Antioch School Board. Antioch is so fortunate to have a candidate of her caliber, dedication, and profound knowledge and ability to lead the District in a positive direction. Ms. Motts, as a former School Board member, was instrumental in implementing the hugely successful secondary academies and linked learning. She was present and supported so many of each school’s activities, events, administrative and staff endeavors.

More importantly and because of the present Board’s apparent ineptitude, once elected she will provide the strong and equitable leadership that will restore trust in the Board. Administrative and instructional staff trust her and believe in her.

I urge you to vote for Joy Motts. She is the only hope to establish a positive and effective alliance with all key personnel in the Antioch School District and will lead the District to the success that Antioch children deserve.

Barbara Cowan, Former Antioch School Board Member

Oregon

In making our decision about who to endorse for Mayor of Antioch and City Council, one choice was easy. Kenny Turnage II is by far the best choice for the Antioch City Council. He has a background in growing a business in Antioch, and serving the community in a variety of ways, including as a member of the Economic Development Commission.

He has the best combination of experience, understanding of the issues, and willingness to speak out on the problems we face and hold people accountable to solve them. Turnage knows how to get things done. Antioch needs him on the City Council.

The second choice for council was more difficult. Fred Rouse offers both the time availability and fiscal knowledge as a retired businessman. We like his service on the City’s Administrative Appeals Board. But, we believe he needs more experience and understanding of the issues and how to deal with them and encourage him to run, again in two years.

Councilwoman Mary Rocha has served Antioch, well while in public office for 32 years, including 16 on the school board, four as mayor and 12 years as a council member. We applaud her commitment to serving and working to make Antioch better and for being the only incumbent to attend our forum and face the tough questions.

But she, Councilwoman Monica Wilson and Mayor Wade Harper, who are both seeking their second terms in their positions, have failed in two very serious ways: police staffing and Measures C and O oversight.

In 2013, they promised us 22 more police officers if we passed Measure C. We voted for it and gave the council an extra $5.5 million per year to spend. We have a net four sworn police officers, as a result and they can’t explain exactly how and where the rest of the money was spent. That’s unacceptable. They have not earned the right to be reelected.

Karl Dietzel has some good ideas and we encourage him to continue speaking out on the various issues as a resident, but not as a council member.

Lamar Thorpe has been somewhat controversial since getting involved in Antioch politics, four years ago. A false accusation against him by an ex-girlfriend, nine months after she claimed it happened, during his senior year in  college, has followed him for nine years. This paper was part of that by reporting on it, the best we could based on the information we had. Thorpe refused to speak with our reporter, at that time, because he had lost trust in the media and was tired of dealing with the issue.

But, now that Thorpe has spoken to the Herald, it is clear what he was accused of never happened. He was still punished for it, in an on-campus disciplinary process. While it took him a year, Thorpe won his appeal and his record was expunged. That issue should no longer be allowed to affect his ability to put his skills, energy and positive ideas to work to benefit Antioch. We need that combination on the Council, now.

While we disagreed with his leading the Measure E campaign, this year, his reasons for working to pass it were   different than the out-of-town casino that funded it. As a result, Thorpe paid the price and was removed from his seat on the Economic Development Commission by the current city council, an action supported by this newspaper.

However, his efforts proved to be successful, as the voters of Antioch overwhelmingly sided with Thorpe and passed the ballot measure in June.

The voters should side with him, again and elect him to the City Council.

In deciding who to endorse for Mayor of Antioch for the next four years, we were torn. While Gil Murillo has some good ideas, and we like his aggressive promises for local job creation, we believe it would be best if  he waited a few years, learned more about the local issues and ran for city council, then. We suggest the new mayor appoint Murillo to the city’s   Economic Development Commission.

We like Mayor Pro Tem Lori Ogorchock’s leadership over the past two years and willingness to be the lone voice of reason, on the city council. But, if she’s elected Mayor, she will have to step down from her council seat and the council will have to appoint her replacement for the remaining two years of her term. We’ve had too much of that in the past and prefer to have all five council members elected by the voters.

Dr. Sean Wright’s leadership has turned around the Antioch Chamber of Commerce over the past six years. His regional connections and efforts are already helping Antioch economically. His energy and vision will serve us, well.

If you want both Wright and Ogorchock on the council, we recommend you join us and vote Wright for Mayor, and we’ll get them both. With Turnage and Thorpe on the council, it will be a dynamic combination of four strong leaders who will help solve our city’s crime and blight problems, and bring businesses and jobs to Antioch.

Dear Editor:

Please read http://eastcountytoday.net/letter-mayor-harper-supports-antioch-police-outreach-efforts/

I would like to acknowledge publicly that an attempt was made to meet with the Mayor face to face and resolve any misinterpretations and, or misgivings regarding the symposium. Mayor Harper, stated: “I won’t be meeting about the ‘opinion’ article. Feel free to write a rebuttal or response to…”  I have respectfully done so in love.

Dear Mayor Wade Harper:

I would like to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to attend the Building Bridges and Tearing Down Barriers symposium. The symbiotic relationship that you have with local law enforcement is commendable. However, I am sorely disappointed by your overall interpretation of the symposium organizers’ efforts. This organization is to be commended for their due diligence, perseverance, and dedication in an attempt to have positive productive conversations that could ultimately save lives.

Based on your aforementioned letter; you stated some ways in which the symposium could have potentially been more successful. Your recommendations are greatly appreciated. The organization did plan to attend a city council meeting introducing objectives and overarching-goals of the organization.  Unfortunately, the spokesperson for the organization had to attend to an unforeseen matter- so he was unable to attend the council meeting preceding the symposium. In addition, the organization members did meet with several council members individually as you suggested.

According to the content that precedes your letter, stated: “Harper said Antioch Police are reaching out to the community and that ACT has caused great confusion in the community as to whether or not police would participate in the forums.” This statement is really disheartening. The organization’s intentions were to ameliorate the relationship between law enforcement and the community. Most importantly the symposium was a conduit to positive productive proactive conversations that could ultimately save lives.

You are correct. Unfortunately, there were errors on the initial flyers. However, a new amended flyer with the correct information was presented to local law enforcement, city officials (I personally sent one to you), local mediums, and the public at large. In addition, a member of the organization contacted the local law enforcement and apologized for the initial misgivings. For further clarification, police were actually part of the panel; unfortunately, local law enforcement was not part of the panel for this particular symposium. Hopefully, local law enforcement will be able to participate in the future and convey all the impactful events that they are participating in- and hosting within the community.

However, the panel did consist of a retired police officer and a current CHP officer that offered their introspective perspective that provided an intended balance of opinions and experiences. The panel was outstanding. They should be commended for their collective passion, professionalism and integrity. Their time and effort were not taken for granted. The panel consisted of a re-entry coordinator, a licensed registered nurse/case manager; a licensed family therapist/clinical specialist; a lawyer/founder and principal; and the aforementioned officers.

You stated in your letter the following: “I encourage people to have the discussion, host forums, talk about the issues, but I encourage them to not do it as an outsider looking in. As members of the community, do it as an insider and a member of the community.”

Five out of the six panelists are Antioch residential homeowners. Including myself the moderator that would make six out seven. Who determines whether a person is an insider or outsider?

You also stated: “My conclusion is that we should resist the temptation to judge Antioch police based upon on what happens in other states and cities.”

With all due respect, you did not stay for the conclusion of the symposium; so how can you conclude anything objectively?  It is disappointing to hear you convey that some people were “outsiders” and some people were “insiders,” especially when our tax dollars are utilized for a multiplicity of local governmental endeavors.  

Again, I am deeply saddened and disappointed. We look to you for leadership not condemnation. The organization did not attempt to bifurcate, nor oppose local law enforcement. However, I am still prayerful that this will clarify any misinterpretations or misgivings. We will continue to be proactive community members seeking to avoid tragedies. We are willing to symbiotically work with: various organizations, community stakeholders, and local municipalities for the greater good of the community.

Respectfully,

Dr. Lawrence A. Rasheed

Antioch

It’s time the Antioch School District had a majority of board members who will put the interests of the students, first while protecting the taxpayers.

Appointed incumbents Fernando Navarro and Alonzo Terry, who have each served less than a year on the board, filling vacancies due to resignations of past board members, have been doing well during their brief time in office. They’ve proven themselves to be good listeners, fiscally responsible and honest about the problems in the district.

Navarro, who has two children in Antioch schools, is the only Hispanic member on the board and candidate in the race, is fully bilingual and bi-cultural. He is the only one who can effectively reach out to that part of our community.

Crystal Sawyer-White, a substitute teacher in another school district and owner of a tutoring business, has a Masters in Education, and a child in the district, as well. She has demonstrated her commitment to the students in Antioch, having served on a site council and LCAP committee.

All three support bringing back shop classes to the schools, as well as entrepreneurship classes, teaching students how to start and run their own businesses. That should serve both the students and our community well, as we work to grow our local economy and create local jobs.

These three are also the only candidates to address the realities of the serious problems facing the district, citing the statistics of how few students are proficient in math and English, as well as the dangers of the district’s continued deficit spending and reduction in the reserves. They will serve the district well and have committed to getting the school board meetings either televised on local TV or at least live streamed on the district’s website – and in their first year in office. That will bring the district and board meetings into the 21st century for greater transparency.

The other four candidates, incumbent Diane Gibson-Gray, former school board members Joy Motts and Gary Hack, and news site publisher Mike Burkholder, joined forces and based upon a false assumption, chose not to participate in the televised candidates’ forum the Herald sponsored. They chose to play politics instead of being available to answer questions from residents and other candidates, and even refused to answer questions we emailed them four days prior to asking them at the forum.

The worst thing is three of them, all but Burkholder, proved to be untrustworthy by offering one reason they couldn’t attend, then the day before stating it was due to their false assumption. Burkholder just simply never committed to attend the forum on Friday night, which is just as bad.

This was after two attempts to reschedule the forum to accommodate their schedules, that week, costing the other candidates money in lost business and child care expenses.

We were both surprised and disappointed in their actions and poor decision-making. Not being willing to answer questions that other candidates are asked and answered from us, the public and fellow candidates disqualifies the four from serving in public office.

We need citizen representatives on the Antioch School Board who will put students first, and protect the taxpayers.

It’s time to put the problems of the past behind us with leaders who are afraid of transparency and the use of 21st century technology to keep the public informed, and move forward with three responsible, respectful and available leaders on the board.

Fernando Navarro, Alonzo Terry and Crystal Sawyer-White are those leaders. We encourage you to join us in voting for them on November 8.

The existing Brentwood Center is costing $68,000 a month and its location is not suitable as it sits in a high density retail establishment.

The new center is planned to be completed and open approximately September, 2020 to support student needs in a 17-acre environment in the Trilogy/Marsh Creek Road location.

I support the Governing Board’s decision to go ahead with the center as part of phased plan for enrollment with the first phase planned to support forecasted enrollment with a future phase to increase capacity as enrollment increases.

The initial facilities that are being constructed will provide what is required for the existing student population and is not expected to reach capacity for many years, at which point the 2nd phase of the project will be reviewed for additional construction. This is a smart approach as it ensures that the costs are aligned with the needs of students when it opens and for future students.

Mr. Enholm’s positions have resulted in numerous delays. Delaying the construction of the center would not serve the needs of the district or its students and would ultimately result in higher costs with no benefits to the district, its students and its taxpayers.

Delays also impact the jobs of workers who would contribute to its construction.

Mr. Enholm who was an instructor at DeVry and Heald, the two failed for-profit institutions, four years ago ran on the platform opposing the 17-acre campus and advocated for a 110-acre campus.

He voted for the Brentwood Center as part of the Governing Board recommendation and helped in its bond passage, but continues to pursue a bigger campus even though no location is available and a bigger campus is not approved by the Community College Board.

If a bigger campus were to be built it would mean a tax increase for working families. The need for a larger campus is not practical or a wise use of taxpayer dollars. The LMC campus has unused capacity and forecasted enrollment trends shows that an extension Center will meet the needs of future students as enrollment starts to creep up. The trend of on-line classes also continues to grow reducing the need for increased facilities.

There were discussions early on to move from the planned Trilogy and Marsh Creek Road location, however a feasibility study concluded there is no reasonable alternative to the original site, and the governing board voted 4-1 not to move the site, which it had already purchased. BART had urged possibly moving the site to Highway4 and Mokelume Trail, however, the BART Board had made no official decision to pursue property for a future eBART station near the intersection of Highway 4 and the Mokelumne Trail.

We have no secured land for a site near an eBART.

It would take an additional three or four years and cost an additional $750,000 or more in site-selection processing expenses alone. The move would also need to be approved by the California Community Colleges Board of Governors or the district could risk losing lose $1.1 million per year in current revenue. Pursing a new larger campus could result in a 10 year delay at a minimum and impacting the services that are required for students.

The existing construction at planned facility at the 17-acre center is estimated at this time to be $43.6 million dollars. The costs to move to a 110 Acre campus would be astronomical in comparison with the taxpayers footing the bill for this increase, with no current basis for its usage based on enrollment needs and trends compared to the approved 17 acre campus.

Mr. Enholm’s delaying tactics in stalling the construction has already cost the district thousands of dollars.  Mr. Enholm continues to advocate for a larger campus for Antioch, Oakley and Brentwood. However, unless those communities are willing to pay an increase in taxes, as the entire District taxpayers would not support it based on past tax increase elections. A key reason Measure E passed was because there was something for every taxpayer.

Mr. Enholm continues to advocate for a campus in Antioch and Oakley and stated in part that the reason he won his first election was that he went before those communities and told them he would help build a larger campus. However, these communities were informed that Mr. Enholm did not have the authority of Board approval for such a statement.

Mr. Enholm’s desire to move the campus may be more in self-interest as these new campuses would be in Ward 5, which he presently represents. The planned Brentwood Center is located outside of his ward.  Self-interest is never a reason to lobby for change that is not beneficial to the larger community, especially our students.

We need fresh eyes, new ideas, and a leader who can bring people together in order to solve problems with practical ideas and future thinking.

Fernando is listening. Fernando has the education, experience, and commitment to bring needed change.

Vote wisely November 8^th.

Valerie Romero-Lopez

Ward 5 resident

Pittsburg

By Lou Davis

For as many years as I can remember, I’ve always been a strong advocate of giving praise to groups of special people, and individuals in our society who help to keep us safe, and enable us to live in freedom..

Unlike too many people nowadays, who claim that police officers are searching for black men to kill, I see this as a two-sided dilemma. If fewer crimes are committed, fewer police officers would be needed to go into the hood to check out complaints. Also, if more parents, school teachers and college instructors  are available to teach younger people how to stay out of trouble, and how to respect authorities there will not be as many arrests and shootings.

And why does Kaepernick and other multimillion dollar NFL players show outward disrespect for the Flag and National Anthem that our military forces have fought and died to preserve?   Now this unhealthy movement is even taking hold in our high schools.  You have to wonder if NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is proud of the fact that he’s allowing Colin Kaepernick to dictate policy for the League he should be running?

As for myself, I proudly served this country for 20 years, including wartime service in Vietnam, along with millions of other veterans.  Now, we must stand by and personally be insulted by these young, wayward football-playing millionaires.  They obviously did not learn enough in school, nor in college to understand like real adults, what national pride is all about.

These ill-advised protesters should also realize that every time they take to the streets  and occupy public places to air their grievances, they also broaden the potential of a worsening race and class warfare in our country.

The enemy from outside our country; ISIS and other terrorists take advantage of a breaking down of forces inside America to launch more effective attacks on all of us.  It should be enough that our so-called “leaders” in Washington are willfully diminishing our fighting forces, and inviting even more potential terrorists to unlawfully enter our country.  And, Hillary Clinton is planning to invite 500 percent more “refugees” into the country than President Obama has done already.

I’m happy to congratulate law enforcement people in Antioch and other parts of Contra Costa County who, working together arrested two hate criminals who recently tried to burn down the home of a nonwhite family.  These criminals could have been planning to commit this arson for a number of sick reasons, or they could have been incited to take revenge on people of another color, as part of their own undeclared race-hate war.

Whatever the reason, I say, to law enforcement who arrested those responsible people, and all other  brave crime fighters – Thanks for your service!

In November, there are three dates which we should all be aware of:  On November 8th, be sure to vote, for someone, who will help transform this country into one we can continue to be very proud of. On November 11th, lets remember to say thanks to our veterans for helping to keep our country free.

And, on Thanksgiving Day, whether you eat turkey or not, take time to thank God that we live in the greatest country in the world, and let’s ask our Creator to help us do all we can to keep it that way.

“if you cherish free expression, and free speech rights generally, you should be worried”

By Allen Payton, Publisher & Editor

I rarely write about national issues on the Herald website or newspaper, but this one is too important not to, as what could happen in the next few days could affect not only my business, but any and all internet-related media and any business and individual who uses the internet.

The Obama Administration supports allowing the international takeover of the internet, which was developed here in America, first by our military, and is currently controlled by American interests.

If that happens, some non-elected body made up mostly of representatives of foreign governments, which in general oppose and work against American interests and the freedoms we enjoy in our country, will be in control of the most powerful information and commerce tool ever created.

The UN could ultimately take control and it is not favorable to America and hasn’t been for years. Back in 1985 while working as an intern for then-U.S. Senator Pete Wilson in Washington, D.C., I had the opportunity to travel to New York over Thanksgiving weekend to visit a college buddy. He had to work the day after the holiday, so I spent it being a tourist in Manhattan.

One of my last stops was the United Nations building. While in the gift shop I met and struck up a conversation with a delegate from the U.S. State Department and asked him what his thoughts were on the institution. His response was rather eye-opening.

“This place is a joke,” he said. “It’s the U.S. and Israel against the world and once in awhile our old friend Great Britain will abstain.”

Well, things haven’t changed much in the 31 years since then, and actually they’ve become worse. While I believe it’s always better to talk things out than to fight them out, as the delegates to the UN spend much of their time doing in that deliberative body, the decisions they can make once they have control of the Internet could prove disastrous.

Let’s remember who some of the nation states that are members and their policies toward the Internet in their own countries. China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few. Do we want their views, which are anathema to our God-given, constitutionally-protected freedoms of religion, speech, and the press be the ones governing or influencing how the Internet operates in our country? What about even England, Scotland or France, where certain comments that we consider disagreements and debate, can get you arrested for “hate speech”?

In a television interview on Wednesday, Ajit Pai, a senior member of the Federal Communications Commission, said “This proposal is to essentially give up the US oversight role that it’s had for the last 20 years, basically for the entire commercial lifespan of the Internet to a company called ICANN, which is an international organization, which includes a number of foreign countries.”

Pai further stated, “[I]f you cherish free expression, and free speech rights generally, you should be worried, I think, when there’s — this oversight role’s going to be ceded to potentially, foreign governments who might not share our values.”

This needs to be stopped and now.

Congress is debating the issue today and the change will occur on Saturday. Our representatives need to hear from us, now. Please join me in contacting them and urging them to vote to stop the Obama administration from transferring oversight of the internet to an international body.

Rep. Jerry McNerney

Washington, D.C. Office (202) 225-1947

Antioch Office (925) 754-0716

Stockton Office (209) 476-8552

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier

Washington, D.C. Office (202) 225-2095

Walnut Creek Office (925) 933-2660

Richmond Office (510) 620-1000

Senator Diane Feinstein

Washington, D.C. Office (202) 224-3841

San Francisco Office (415) 393-0707

Senator Barbara Boxer

Washington, D.C. Office (202) 224-3553

Oakland Office (510) 286-8537

Editor:

Antioch is in trouble. Mayor Wade Harper and Councilwoman Monica Wilson are self-promoting failures.  They failed in their recent County Supervisor bids and are now running back to Antioch to keep their current elected positions.  They wanted out of Antioch, so let them stay out. Don’t vote for them.

Their impacts haven’t been positive in many ways.  Antioch is no safer since their elections. Their vision and actions for Antioch have turned it into a crime-plagued and increasingly crowded, unsafe community.

Some of Harper’s primary election campaign platforms were to improve Antioch’s public safety. He boasted “The City of Antioch will be a safer city on my watch” and “Stopping crime now starts with …. Wade Harper.”  He hasn’t kept you any safer.

Harper also promised “more police” and “less crime” in his support for more taxes.  What a farce that he has turned out to be. He was a main proponent for passage of the tax.  Same police, similar crime results since. Monica Wilson just went along and has had no solutions either.  Antioch’s police manpower has really not been increased, even with them at the helm, with almost the same number of sworn officers as before.  But, they did give big salary and benefit increases to certain employee groups, instead of using that money to hire more Officers (which they should’ve done), and they continually voted for more crime-contributing, uncontrolled growth.  That hasn’t kept you any safer.

Antioch’s crime rate hasn’t really been reduced. It’s been a misleading dog and pony show when publicly discussed by them and others.  As an example, where are the 20-plus “more” officers that were promised?  And where is the “less crime” they promised?  Nowhere is where.  Antioch’s documented high crime rate is much higher than the documented California and National average crime rates.

Let’s face it, Antioch’s Wade Harper and Monica Wilson are proven failures, and should not be voted for, again. We can do better without them.

Ralph A. Hernandez, Chair

Citizens For Democracy

Antioch