School board isn’t properly overseeing their one employee, have exposed district to lawsuits, while majority of students are underachieving in math, reading and science

The last performance evaluation for Superintendent Anello was over four years ago

By Allen D. Payton

There sure seems to be a whole lot of bullying and accusations of it going on in the Antioch Unified School District, lately.

First, there were accusations of bullying by employees against a supervisor in the maintenance department over the placement of an extra desk on a roof saying that was his new office, which was investigated and determined to be a prank – over a year prior.

Then that employee and others complained to one Bay Area TV reporter because they weren’t happy with the results of the internal investigation, and bullied District staff until that supervisor was placed on paid leave (which he’s still on) and more investigations were conducted (for which we’re still waiting for the results).

Then ASUD Board President Antonio Hernandez chose to go to the media with private personnel information and bullied Superintendent Stephanie Anello calling for her resignation. That’s because he chose to follow the lead of the complaining employees, siding with them and blaming her for not handling the situation properly, because she and her husband are friends with that department supervisor. That’s even though she had nothing to do with that supervisor’s hiring, nor does he answer to her in the District’s chain of command.

Then members of the public and the leader of the local union for the school district classified employees, California School Employees Association (CSEA) Chapter 85 followed Hernandez’s lead and bullied Anello and her entire district leadership. Chapter president Brian Atkinson announced at the May 8, 2024, school board meeting that “The executive board of our chapter took a vote of no-confidence for the cabinet.” However, whether that vote ever occurred has come into question and has yet to be confirmed. (See related articles here and here and 1:56:00 mark of the May 8 school board meeting video)

Then, during last Wednesday’s board meeting, the audience accused Area 5 Trustee Mary Rocha of bullying Hernandez by calling for his censure, which was the appropriate action to take, which is basically a public spanking or hand slapping. (They could not vote to remove him from the board. The most they could have done was vote to remove him from his position as president).

Finally, the audience were the bullies by disrupting the school board meeting, including while Area 4 Trustee Gary Hack was trying to speak on the matter and shouting down the 86-year-old Rocha, literally and surprisingly calling her a racist for challenging her fellow Hispanic board member’s behavior.

Wrong Message Sent and Lesson Taught

What Hernandez and the other three board members did, sadly, was send the wrong message to current and future board members and the students they’re supposed to be elected to help acquire an education was that the ends justify the means. First, it was done by the board president repeatedly violating the rules, this year, and then what the audience did during the most recent board meeting. While Hack and Area 3 Trustee Dr. Clyde Lewis spoke on one side of the issue, that there is a proper process that must be followed, they wimped out and voted the opposite way by not supporting the censure. Worse, Hernandez defended and doubled down on his actions instead of being just a little bit humble and admitting he could have handled things differently and better, and Area 2 Trustee Dr. Jag Lathan’s defense of his inappropriate actions, as well.

Is that really the lessons we want students in the district to learn? Violate the rules, then raise their voices and defend their actions, stomp their feet, yell, call out, be disrespectful and disruptive, and worse call people with whom they disagree names and label those people racist until they get their way? That’s called childish behavior, and while we might expect it from young children, it is not the appropriate manner to get things accomplished for any student in the district and certainly not adults, including parents and others who were in the audience Wednesday night.

That may be how things are done in the big cities, but this isn’t San Francisco, Oakland or Berkeley and it shouldn’t be the way to get things done in Antioch.

Hernandez blew things out of proportion and has been merely grandstanding at the expense of Anello, thinking and hoping he finally had an issue he could use to bully her into resigning or get her fired, as he’s been trying to do since the month after he took his seat on the board in December 2020. Worse, he did so at the district’s expense. His actions have exposed the district to lawsuits from her and the maintenance department supervisor. With the board’s failure to censure Hernandez this past Wednesday night for his clear violations of board policy and bylaws, they’ve made the matter worse and have further exposed the district to those lawsuits.

While it’s doubtful Anello will sue as she will continue to keep her job, if she wants it, at least until the new board is seated following the elections in November and wouldn’t want to end her career, that way, it’s more likely the maintenance department supervisor might file a lawsuit which will cost and waste taxpayers’ money.

I expected and still expect more out of Hernandez. He’s a bright young man and could have learned from this situation, taken his lumps and proper discipline Rocha attempted to mete out, and let it be a learning experience for him, current and future board members and the district’s students. I also expected and expect more out of Lathan who claimed it was “oppression and White supremacy” for Rocha attempting to properly discipline the board president, especially when they’re both Hispanic. How utterly ridiculous, completely baseless and we all know she knows that. Our local officials must not be so divisive, knock off the race baiting and hateful rhetoric and set a higher standard and better example for the students. Frankly, the other board members should have called her out for saying such a thing and condemned it. As I’ve told elected officials in the past, I tell them all, now – do better, be better.

You Had One Job! Board Not Managing Their Only Employee

As they saying and online meme goes, “You had one job!” when people mess up big time while at work. It applies to the school board as they have only one employee who they hire and answers to them, the district superintendent. As I told Hernandez at one of the high school graduations, recently, they have every right to terminate her or whomever holds the position. But they haven’t followed the proper process and procedure by providing Anello with proper oversight and have repeatedly proven they can’t handle that simple task which is supposed to be conducted only once each year.

That’s because Hernandez hasn’t done what’s required to even evaluate Anello properly, much less have grounds for her termination. Nor have the other four board members. Yet, that is literally their number one job. They’re part-time policy makers and it’s the full-time professional employees including the superintendent and district staff leaders who answer to her, that are supposed to be following and carrying out the board’s directions. But the board hasn’t properly provided it.

The last time the superintendent was evaluated was over four years ago in 2020, when Diane Gibson-Gray was board president. So, during Ellie Householder’s term as president from 2020-21, followed by Hack’s presidency in 2021-22, then Lewis’ term as president from 2022-23 and this year under Hernandez’ leadership, the board has failed to evaluate Anello each year because they never gave her goals to work on, which is what’s needed to measure her performance for the evaluation.

Seriously, how tough can that be? When I was on the Antioch City Council – and I was the youngest council member in the county when I was first elected – we had two employees who answered to us and for whom we provided annual performance evaluations: the city manager and city attorney. I had never done one previously for a public employee, but I learned real quick in my first year how it’s done. The council members with greater tenure showed this new member, what to do, including meeting with the two top city employees to provide the necessary guidance and goals, then typing up the evaluations. Only a council member could do that because due to proper personnel procedure, no other city employee could do it so they wouldn’t see what the council included in those written evaluations. Why can’t the school board do the same for their one employee? Why can’t at least three of them agree on the goals to give to the superintendent each year? Is it really that difficult? Of course not.

While Lewis made an effort, last year, by having the board bring in a paid outside consultant to help them develop the list of goals to give to Anello, they never completed that task. Yet, as was pointed out during last Wednesday’s meeting by NAACP East County Branch Vice President Dr. Kimberly Payton, the board has continued to give annual pay raises to the superintendent. On what basis can they claim she’s earned them?

Even without providing her an evaluation, Hernandez and Lathan attempted to terminate Anello’s contract in May which failed on a 2-3 vote, as it should have. Plus, Hernandez has continued to place on Closed Session meeting agendas Anello’s performance evaluation, even while she’s been on paid leave, knowing she wouldn’t be in attendance and before providing her the board’s goals by which to measure her performance. So, it was all for show knowing nothing could be accomplished.

All this while the majority of students in the district are underachieving in math, reading and science especially Black and Hispanic students, which is where the Board’s focus should be. That’s what’s most disappointing – all the game playing, political posturing, trying to please certain people instead of one, doing their job to properly oversee their only employee, and two, working to improve the education of our district’s students. Talk is cheap and all of it has added up to little to no progress. Yet, Hernandez, Lathan and others want to blame Anello. She’s not at the top. They are, and as the old Romanian saying goes, the fish rots from the head down.

So, this November, hopefully, we can begin cutting out that rot. Lewis isn’t running for reelection, and rumors are Hernandez, who represents Area 1, is going to run for City Clerk – now that Householder, the incumbent, has fallen out of favor with his and her former political ally, the mayor, after she publicly exposed, opposed and distanced herself from him following the settlement of the sexual harassment lawsuit against him in 2022 (and who I believe has matured, grown into and proven herself in her current elected position since then, and I’d be willing to support her for re-election). So, there will be one or two new board members elected in those trustee areas.

Frankly, Hack shouldn’t run again as he failed during his presidency to do what was necessary to properly oversee the board’s one employee, failed worse this past week when he let Hernandez off the hook and the worst due to the abysmal test scores of the district’s students. If you’re too tired to fight the necessary battles and do what’s right with the authority and responsibility given to you, it’s time to move on.

So, perhaps we will be able to elect three new board members who can demonstrate the ability to properly manage their one employee and actually put the students and their education first.

One more thing on who we elect to local office: let’s make sure they can demonstrate the necessary maturity, not still be in school getting their education, have the time to devote to the position, not use it for political grandstanding purposes nor trying to implement a hidden political agenda, and are willing to take on the role of boss to one employee – give her goals and then evaluate her performance based on them, and most importantly make improving the education of our district’s students their true top priority.

The bottom line is we all oppose bullying among students, so it shouldn’t be occurring or allowed among the adults, especially those in leadership in the Antioch Unified School District. Everyone needs to be mature, respectful and good examples to the students in how they behave, follow the rules and treat others. Perhaps placing signs like the one above throughout the district including in the Board Room might help as a reminder.

By Brandon Lawson

As Antioch searches for ways to rejuvenate its economy and community, it’s crucial to remember our rich heritage of leveraging local resources for growth and prosperity. Historically, from the coal mines to the steel mills, our city thrived by tapping into what was readily available. Today, we face a similar opportunity, not by following the trend of tech industry acquisitions, but by returning to our roots and using our natural assets—specifically, the abundant water of the Delta.

Creating hydroelectric power plants along the Delta can be Antioch’s modern-day coal mine. This initiative will not only provide sustainable energy but also generate a surge in job opportunities, echoing the industrial boom of our past. It’s a chance to align with global movements toward renewable resources while addressing local employment and energy needs.

Such a project would do more than just power our homes; it could stimulate local businesses, attract investments, and provide the city with a stable economic foundation. Furthermore, hydroelectric power is clean, reducing our environmental footprint and offering our community a leadership role in the sustainable practices that are increasingly valued worldwide.

We must also consider the broader implications of this shift. By focusing on sustainable energy, Antioch can set an example for cities across the nation that economic growth and environmental responsibility can go hand in hand. This is not just about energy; it’s about cultivating a resilient community ready to face the challenges of the future with innovative solutions derived from our historical identity.

As we ponder Antioch’s path forward, let’s choose to harness the natural strength of the Delta. This approach not only respects our past but also paves the way for a future where Antioch stands as a beacon of sustainable innovation and economic independence.

Lawson is an educator and sci-fi author from Antioch who writes under the pen name Will Scifi.

While passenger in car driven recklessly by ex-boyfriend she had a restraining order against

Antioch PD investigating, submitting to DA for review

Dear Antioch Herald,

I am writing to you with a heavy heart and a plea for justice. Angela Fierro, a 20-year-old resident of Antioch, tragically lost her life in a car accident on July 6, 2023. This was no ordinary accident; it was a preventable tragedy that has left a family grieving and a community in shock.

Angela was not just a statistic; she was a daughter, a friend, and a mother to a one-year-old child. Her life was cut short due to the reckless actions of another—a person who should have never been behind the wheel. Angela had a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend, who, despite this legal barrier, forced his way into her vehicle and drove it recklessly until it crashed.

The details of the incident are harrowing. Angela was fighting for her life, without a seatbelt, as she struggled against the man who had no right to be there. Her friend, a passenger in the car, sustained severe injuries, and the driver of the other vehicle involved also suffered from the collision¹. Yet, the man responsible for this chaos walked away without immediate consequences.

We turn to you, Antioch Herald, to help us amplify our call for justice. Angela’s story deserves to be heard, and her family’s plea for accountability must not go unanswered. We urge you to cover this story, to shed light on the circumstances that led to Angela’s untimely death, and to join us in our quest for justice.

Amidst their profound grief over Angela’s untimely departure, her family was also grappling with the emotional and financial strain of arranging her funeral. As time marches on, the Antioch Police Department remains inactive, failing to apprehend the person responsible for the accident that claimed Angela’s life. Despite the existence of a restraining order against him, and the police’s acknowledgment of his culpability in forcibly entering Angela’s vehicle—endangering her and her friend—he remains unapprehended. The delay in justice only compounds the family’s anguish and the community’s unrest.

By bringing Angela’s story into the public eye, we aim to catalyze action from the Antioch Police Department and draw attention to the lack of response and professionalism that has been displayed thus far.

In memory of Angela, we ask for your support. Please help us ensure that her passing is not in vain and that such a tragedy does not occur to another innocent life.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Bryan Cendejas-Bravo (a friend of Marisela Madrigal, Angela’s sister).

——————-

Editor’s Note: The letter was shared with Interim Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington who was asked to provide whatever details he could about the case and any investigation into the incident.

He said, “it’s still an active case and we will be submitting it to the DA for their review.”

But he couldn’t comment further on it. Mr. Cendejas-Bravo was provided that information.

(See related articles here and here)

By Neil Sterud

In times of financial distress, corporations often turn to the U.S. government for assistance, as seen with airlines during the COVID-19 pandemic and financial institutions in the 2008 Great Recession. However, the government must implement stricter conditions for firms seeking bailouts, particularly those engaged in stock buybacks before their financial downturn.

Stock buybacks, a practice where firms repurchase their own shares, have garnered controversy. While it artificially inflates share prices, it often neglects vital investments in the company’s growth and resilience. Executives’ tendency to sell their shares post-buyback suggests the share price is overvalued, raising ethical concerns, especially when buybacks are financed through debt, heightening bankruptcy risks.

The historical prohibition of buybacks until 1982 underscores their dubious nature as stock manipulation tactics driven by executives’ self-interest. Instead of bolstering shareholder returns through buybacks, firms should prioritize investments that fortify their market resilience, such as capital expenditure. Government bailouts effectively subsidize shareholder returns at taxpayers’ expense, highlighting the need for a paradigm shift in corporate behavior. Many argue stock buybacks should be illegal altogether.

Executives’ vested interests in buybacks, often tied to their compensation, don’t necessarily translate to enhanced business performance. This bipartisan concern resonates with workers and policymakers alike, who advocate for redirecting working capital toward workforce training and sustainable reinvestment.

While federal tax breaks aim to spur economic growth, the misuse of tax savings for buybacks undermines this objective. Therefore, stricter conditions should accompany government bailouts, emphasizing long-term resilience over short-term gains.

In contemplating bailouts, leniency could be extended to firms severely impacted by mandated government shutdowns. Nonetheless, the overarching principle remains: corporations must prioritize resilience against unforeseen crises rather than fleeting market performance.

Sterud is an Antioch resident.

By Marc Joffe

Like mom and apple pie, the public library seems so intrinsically good that it should be beyond criticism. But like any institution that consumes millions of tax dollars, public libraries should not be free from scrutiny. And the facts are that neighborhood libraries have largely outlived their usefulness and no longer provide value for the public money spent on them.

In this fiscal year, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are collectively spending $270 million to operate their library systems, with some cities chipping in extra to finance extended operating hours. Contra Costa County is spending $20 million of state and county funds to build a new library in Bay Point, and El Cerrito voters may see a sales tax measure on the November ballot, part of which will go to building a new library as part of a transit-oriented development near a BART station.

The public library’s historical functions of lending physical books and enabling patrons to view reference materials are being made obsolete by digital technology. An increasing proportion of adults are consuming e-books and audiobooks in addition to or instead of printed books, with younger adults more likely to use these alternative formats.

In response, libraries have tried to reposition themselves as “third places:” alternatives to homes and offices where people can relax, learn, and socialize. But the private sector offers numerous third places of its own, with coffee houses being the most common.

In Walnut Creek, the public library has responded by adding its own coffee shop, but just a few minutes away, residents and visitors can relax and enjoy free wi-fi at the Capital One Café at no cost to taxpayers and without being required to buy a cup of joe.

While no third place used by the public can be guaranteed to be safe and clean, private operators have a stronger incentive to provide an attractive environment because they otherwise risk going out of business.

They also face fewer legal restraints in enforcing public decorum. A 1991 federal court decision prohibited a New Jersey public library from “barring patrons who are not reading, studying or using library materials, who harass or annoy others through noisy activities or by staring, or whose ‘bodily hygiene is so offensive’ that it is a nuisance to others.”

As the Antioch Herald reported in February, the Antioch library had to be temporarily closed after multiple incidents “including a couple having sex openly in the bathroom, a wanted criminal using a library computer who was later removed by Antioch police, a racist letter left on the service desk and intoxicated library patrons acting aggressively.” The Contra Costa Public Library, which operates the Antioch facility reopened it four days later after negotiating an emergency contract for private armed security and arranging for a patrol car to monitor the exterior.

Library advocates argue that their public terminals offer essential internet access to those in need. But some patrons use free internet access at the local library to view pornographic content, sometimes to the distress of other terminal users including children. And low-income individuals are eligible for the Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline program which provides a free smartphone with internet access.

Like local post offices, neighborhood libraries once served an important community function but are now becoming increasingly irrelevant. And, as with post offices, libraries continue to receive funding because they enjoy support from a relatively small but vocal segment of the population, while the rest of us are usually too reluctant to question their utility.

Marc Joffe is a federalism and state policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

Group behind effort to defeat her has spent over $233,000

By Allen D. Payton

At least two campaign mailers against candidate for State Assembly District 15 Anamarie Avila Farias were sent to voters this month by a group named “Contra Costa Neighbors opposed to Farias for Assembly 2024”, and the most recent mailer clearly stretches the truth in one of its claims. They’re part of an effort that has spent over $233,000 to defeat her, so far.

The mailer readers “Typical Politician Anamarie Avila Farias’ Double-Dipping Record Hurt Progress on Homelessness” and among other accusations claims she, “Collected salaries and benefits from multiple governmental agencies at the same time.”

The mailer offers a link to “Check The Facts” on the Transparent California website, which lists public employees’ compensation records provided to them by government agencies – http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=anamarie+farias&y=.

First, while I prefer employees for one government agency to not serve as elected officials for another, it’s not uncommon for local elected officials to also work for other government agencies. That was the case for Avila Farias 10 and 11 years ago. Since then, she has worked for a non-governmental agency and non-profit organization, while serving as both an elected and appointed official.

Some of that information is listed on Avila-Farias’ campaign website.

Government Employment

When reviewing the information about the Assembly candidate on the Transparent California website, it shows she previously worked in government positions as a Senior Management Analyst for the City of Oakland in 2013, then a Program Analyst for the City of Concord in 2013 and 2014, for which she was paid a salary and benefits. Those positions aren’t mentioned on her campaign website but are the only government positions she has held.

Non-Government, Elected & Appointed Positions

Avila Farias currently works as the executive director for the Juvenile Hall Auxiliary of Contra Costa County, a non-profit organization, for which she first served on the board of directors. Avila Farias said she stepped down from the board after being hired to run the organization in 2019.

As a member of the Martinez City Council from 2012-16, Avila Farias received pay and benefits totaling $16,552.01 to $18,791.48 per year. She is now serving in her first term as an elected trustee on the Contra Costa County Board of Education, having been elected in 2020, for which she receives about $550 in stipend and $2,500 in benefits per month.

Avila Farias has also served on the Board of Directors of the California Housing Finance Agency since she was appointed in 2015, for which she said she receives a small stipend of $100 per meeting. That was confirmed by agency staff and is also reflected on the Transparent California website. Avila Farias also serves on the Board of Directors of the Carquinez Regional Environmental Education Center, but that is not a paid position.

According to her profile on the Finance Authority’s website, “She held multiple positions at the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County from 1989 to 2018, including Housing Policy and Program Analyst and Central Waiting List Housing Manager.” However, according to the Housing Authority website, it is not a government agency even though its seven-member board includes all five county supervisors.

Following is the list of Avila Farias’ government position-related compensation from the Transparent California website to which the mailer provides the link, in order of years:

Year     Position                                                                       Pay                  Benefits           Total

2012    Martinez Council Member                                          $195.97           $294.78           $490.75

2013    Martinez Council Member                                          $7,020.00        $9,532.01        $16,552.01

2013    Senior Management Analyst, City of Oakland           $20,381.66      $8,850.29        $29,231.95

2013    Program Manager, City of Concord                           $60,587.94      $21,271.40      $81,859.34

2014    Program Manager, City of Concord                           $31,087.64      $7,038.95        $38,126.59

2014    Member, Martinez Council                                         $7,020.00        $11,348.02      $18,368.02

2015    Member, Martinez Council                                         $7,020.00        $11,771.48      $18,791.48

2016    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $200.00           $ -0-                 $200.00

2016    Member, Martinez Council                                        $6,834.00        $11,523.00      $18,357.00

2016    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2017    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2018    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2019    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $500.00           $ -0-                 $500.00

2020    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2020    Member, Contra Costa Board of Education              $541.97           $ -0-                 $541.97

2021    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $800.00           $ -0-                 $800.00

2021    Member, Contra Costa Board of Education               $6,720.44        $30,590.42      $37,310.86

2022    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2022    Member, Contra Costa Board of Education               $6,857.99        $29,685.26      $36,542.55

Mostly False

So, there were only two years, 2013 and 2014 that Avila Farias received pay and benefits both as a government employee and as an elected official, supporting the mailer’s claim of her “double dipping”. But even that is a stretch as she wasn’t paid a salary for both positions, merely a stipend for her elected position and benefits for both and it was for only two agencies at a time. Thus, the mailer’s claim that Avila Farias “Collected salaries and benefits from multiple governmental agencies at the same time” is mostly false.

Group Behind the Mailer

According to the disclosure requirement on the mailers, the group behind them “a coalition of charter public school advocates, insurance agents, technology, energy, and health care providers” and the “Ad Committee’s Top Funder” is listed as a political action committee (PAC) named “Keeping Californians Working.” A search of the California Secretary of State’s Cal-Access campaign finance website shows the committee’s FPPC ID number is 1365806 and as of the Feb. 17, 2024, report has raised $521,500 and spent $658,516.89 this year, with ending cash of $759,206.46. The PAC raised $1.125 million in 2023.

According to the PAC’s reports the coalition has spent over $233,000 to defeat Avila Farias. The PAC’s Form 497 Late Contribution Report number 321801-05 dated Feb. 26, 2024, shows they contributed $30,000 to the Contra Costa Neighbors opposed to Avila Farias coalition. According to the PAC’s Form 497 Late Contribution Report number 321801-04 dated Feb. 22, 2024, the committee also contributed $52,785 to defeat her, and report number 21801-03 dated Feb. 20, 2024, shows they contributed $150,000 to the effort against Avila Farias. Another Form 497 report number 321801-06 was filed today, Wednesday, Feb. 28 for an additional $1,000 contribution to the coalition’s efforts.

The PAC’s major contributors include $125,000 from the Personal Insurance Federation of CA Agents & Employees PAC; $250,000 from the Pharmaceutical Research And Manufacturers Of America IEC (Independent Expenditure Committee); $250,000 from Uber Innovation Political Action Committee; $250,000 from Powering California’s Future, Sponsored by Edison International, the Los Angeles-area energy company; $250,000 from DaVita, Inc., a kidney dialysis company; and most recently, $10,000 from Leadership for California: East Bay Committee, whose ID number was pending as of the date of the Form 49 report on Feb. 5, 2024. The PAC is also spending money to support other candidates in other parts of the state.

The election is next Tuesday, March 5. Avila Farias faces fellow Democrats former Contra Costa County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson and Republican Realtor Sonia Ledo in the race to replace Assemblyman Tim Grayson who is running for State Senate. The top two candidates will face off in the November general election.

Using federal land, not cash

By Allen D. Payton, Publisher

During this Black History Month, as I’ve been arguing for several years, I believe it’s time for all Americans to agree reparations promised to freed slave families following the Civil War in 1865 should finally be fulfilled – but to their descendants.

First, let me point out the fact – especially to my fellow Republicans who might oppose them – that reparations were first, a Republican idea, ordered by Union Army Major General William Tecumseh Sherman, and supported by President Abraham Lincoln, the nation’s first Republican president. As a reminder, the Republican Party was formed to abolish slavery, and Lincoln and the Union Army successfully fought the Civil War to accomplish that goal.

40 Acres & A Mule

You may have heard the phrase “40 acres and a mule”, which was made more popularly known by movie actor and director Spike Lee who labeled his production company “40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks”. But you may not know that the phrase originated with reparations. That’s because Special Field Orders No. 15 were issued by Sherman on January 16, 1865, before the Civil War ended that May, granting “a plot of not more than (40) forty acres of tillable ground” to families, “made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States He also later ordered the army to lend mules to the freed slaves for their farming efforts.

The orders included the confiscation of 400,000 acres of plantation land along “a strip of (Atlantic) coastline stretching from Charleston, South Carolina to the St. John’s River in Florida, including Georgia’s Sea Islands and the mainland 30 miles in from the coast.” The land was to be divided into parcels on which approximately 18,000 formerly enslaved families and other Black people then living in the area would be settled.

The purpose was to provide for the freed slaves both a means to earn a living and support themselves, and the result would have been giving them an asset that could be passed on to future generations.

According to History.com, “The freedmen set out to begin working their new land immediately, with a group of 1,000 settling on Georgia’s Skidaway Island. In subsequent months as many as 40,000 freedmen settled on the redistributed land.”

Order Rescinded

Unfortunately, after Lincoln’s assassination just three months after the order was issued, his running mate on the National Union Party ticket in 1864, Democrat Vice President Andrew Johnson, following his ascension to the presidency, rescinded Sherman’s order. He returned to Confederate owners the 400,000 acres of land. Thus, the freed slaves were denied the land they had been granted and reparations were never offered to them by the federal government, again.

Why Reparations Now?

Some people argue that it’s been over 150 years, so why do Black Americans need reparations, today? My initial response is that they’re long past due. But my main answer is two-fold. One is the fact that a major issue among most Blacks in the U.S., today is a lack of asset ownership, including homes, real estate, investments and businesses. For example, the average Black family has one-tenth the assets of the average white family in the U.S.

Disparity in Household Wealth

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Wealth and Asset Ownership Detailed Tables: 2020, Table 1. Median Value of Assets for Households, from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, Survey Year 2021, the median net worth for all households was $140,800. However, when broken down by ethnicity, the median “Black alone” household had one-tenth the assets of the median “White alone” household, or $18,430 compared to $178,500. The disparity is even greater when compared to the median “White alone, non-Hispanic” household which had assets of $217,500.

My argument for the disparity and second one in favor of why reparations, now is the fact that for nearly 250 years, almost all Blacks in the U.S. couldn’t own property because they were property, nor did they get paid. They also couldn’t get an education. So, the rest of us, whose ancestors were never subjected to the horrors and evil of chattel slavery, in effect had a 250-year head start!

Yes, I’ve heard the arguments about the Irish, which is my ancestry, and how they were mistreated, or others who were indentured servants. But those were not the same as being a slave sold, bought and owned by someone else, as well as their future generations to follow.

A Federal Responsibility, Not State or Local

Second, reparations are not a state or local issue, but a federal responsibility. Long before the day the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, and in spite of the fact it enshrined the statement that, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and then from the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1789, to Lincoln’s issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War, our federal government allowed slavey. It continued for another 65 years after the Constitution was ratified on May 29, 1790, for a total of 246 years since the first African slaves were brought to our country in 1619. So, again, reparations are a federal responsibility.

(A side, historical note on the Three-Fifths Compromise and clauses in the Constitution. It was not intended by the framers to further devalue the lives of slaves, but to reduce the influence in Congress by the slave states, by preventing them from having additional members in the House of Representatives and a greater number of electors in presidential elections. The slave states wanted to include the slaves in the census count, while the free states didn’t want them included at all. The compromise determined that three out of every five slaves were counted when establishing a state’s total population. A benefit to the slave states was it reduced the amount of taxes they had to pay to the federal government.

In Article I, Section II, Clause III of the Constitution, the Three-Fifths Compromise is stated as:

“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.”

See also James Madison’s writings in Federalist Paper No. 54 in which he argues that slaves were both property and people, and thus required some degree of representation).

But I digress. Back to the issue at hand.

Reparations Are About Land, An Asset

Third, to my Democrat friends I remind them, reparations were initially land and that’s what they still should be, today, not cash. They should be about helping Black Americans own an asset for their use, from which to generate income and to pass on to future generations.

The federal government owns over one-fourth of the land in the U.S. According to a 2020 report and 2023 report by the Congressional Research Service, it amounts to “roughly 640 million acres, about 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States”.

Looking at a map you’ll see the federal land is “heavily concentrated in 12 western states (including Alaska), 3 where the federal government owns roughly half of the overall land area.” That includes 45.4% of California, 60.9% of Alaska, 38.6% of Arizona, 36.2% of Colorado, 20.2% of Hawaii, 61.9% of Idaho, 29.0% of Montana, 80.1% of Nevada, 52.5% of Oregon, 63.1% of Utah, 28.6% of Washington and 46.7% of Wyoming. The federal government also owns 12.9% of Florida.

Much of that land is either in national parks (79.9 million acres), in national forests (192.9 million acres) or is farm and ranch land leased to farmers and ranchers. Five federal agencies administer most of it, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. with the Department of Defense controlling 8.8 million acres, and 4% administered by multiple other agencies.

So, my proposal is to give to all Black Americans, who can prove they are a descendant of a slave in America, some of that federal land. It can either be given out on an individual or family basis.

While not all Black Americans are descendants of a slave in the U.S. – for example, Vice President Kamala Harris, whose father descended from a Jamaican slave, would not qualify – for simple calculation purposes let’s say all of them are. Blacks currently make up about 13% of the U.S. population of about 330 million people for a total of 40 million people.

If we gave every Black American one, two or even five acres, that would be 40, 80 or as much as 200 million acres which would still leave 440 million acres remaining for ownership and use by the federal government. (Frankly, I don’t understand why the federal government needs to own so much land, especially ranch land for grazing, anyway.)

The new owners could do what they want with the land: farm it, drill it for oil, gas or water, mine it, lease it, swap it with other reparation land recipients, build a home on it, borrow against it, or perhaps form joint ventures with neighboring property owners and develop new communities, even cities. But I believe the one stipulation should be the land could only be sold to another descendant of an American slave. Then, it could be passed on to future generations.

Another argument I’ve heard or read about reparations is, why should people today have to pay anything when neither they nor their family ever owned slaves. This approach addresses that concern. By giving out federal land, there would be no cost to current taxpayers. While it might reduce revenue to the federal government from a reduction in leased lands, that’s a small price to pay for addressing this 160-year-old matter once and for all time.

No One Has to Participate

Some Black people have stated publicly they don’t need or want the help and find it offensive that they be offered reparations. Let’s be clear, no one who is qualified has to participate in a federal reparations program. But I believe most would. Who wouldn’t want free land?

Those who chose to participate would, of course, have to prove their status, and some form of reparations commission or government agency would have to be formed to verify their status and manage the distribution of the land grants. Once verified, program participants would be entered into a lottery and the property could be distributed in periodic drawings. It could even be televised nationally as the participants’ numbers are drawn, and advertising could be sold, and the revenue shared with the federal government to make up for the loss of land lease revenue.

One Time Program May Take Several Years

To sum up, I say it’s time, once and for all, to fulfill the commitment of reparations ordered in 1865 and give portions of federally owned land to the descendants of slaves in the U.S. It might take several years to accomplish, but I believe we should and could start right away.

Once the land has been distributed and all who want it received their share, then that would be it. We’d be done. Everyone would be happy, and there could be no more complaining. The agency would be disbanded, the issue would be put to rest, and it would be up to the new landowners to make do with theirs what they can.

Now, all we need is for Members of Congress and U.S. Senators to introduce the idea and move it forward.

By Jon Coupal

Note: This column first appeared in The Press-Enterprise. Republished with permission.

Daily news reports on the great “California Exodus” are not just from conservative outlets. Left-leaning publications such as the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle have recently reported on the outmigration of upper-income citizens who, even if not billionaires, still generate a lot of income tax revenue.

Earlier this month the California Legislature held a hearing on Assembly Bill 259 which would lay the foundation for the imposition of a wealth tax. The companion legislation to AB 259 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would, among other things, effectively sweep away Proposition 13’s limits on taxing property.

Fortunately, the idea that California would be the first in the nation to impose a highly unpopular wealth tax is so radical that the proposal was rejected by Democrats as well as Republicans on the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee. It didn’t take long for the Democrat chair of the committee to shuffle the bill to the “suspense” file where bad legislation goes to die.

Coincidentally, the wealth tax hearing occurred on the same day that Gov. Newsom released his proposed budget. Things got a little sparky during the presentation with Newsom pushing hard against the Legislative Analyst’s figure of a $68 billion deficit. Newsom contends that the deficit is “only” $38 billion. (But hey, what’s a $30 billion difference between friends).

Newsom saved his most animated criticism for those who highlight the state’s shortcomings, including the significant outmigration of California’s most productive citizens. He especially targeted the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which has never been reticent about commenting on the state’s well-deserved reputation for anti-business bias.

But to his credit, Newsom rejected the notion of a wealth tax – at least for now. For taxpayers, it matters little whether the governor’s stance is motivated by politics or a sincere policy position. Either way, we’ll take it.

The problems with the wealth tax proposal – even as half-baked as it is – are legion. But one issue should be especially troubling to anyone who believes both in fiscal restraint and basic constitutional freedoms. That is, could a wealth tax be applied to people who voluntarily leave the state for the specific purpose of avoiding California’s highest-in-the-nation income taxes? AB 259 contains a provision that applies the wealth tax to every “wealth-tax resident,” defined as someone who “is no longer a resident, and does not have the reasonable expectation to return to the state.”

The question here is not whether a resident of another state can be taxed when they have a “nexus” to California, for example income earned in California or owning property in the state. Rather, what about someone who no longer has any connection to California? The proposal to tax wealth on such people would likely be deemed to violate the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

More fundamentally, an “exit tax” could be construed as an impairment to the right to travel. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in 1958 in Kent v. Dulles that citizens have a liberty interest in the right to travel: “[t]he right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment …”

Setting aside the practical and legal problems with this or any wealth tax proposal, a fundamental problem is the signal it sends to all productive California taxpayers as well as those in other states who might consider moving here.  California already has a horrible reputation for its treatment of taxpayers and businesses, why would we even consider another punishing tax?

The proponents of the wealth tax need to be reminded that, as much as they might want to prevent citizens from leaving, California is not East Berlin. The U.S. Constitution will not allow the state government to build a wall to keep citizens in, and then shoot tax bills at them when they try to escape.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.