The voters of Antioch spoke on June 5 and by nearly 71% to 29% rejected Measure L to change the City Clerk and City Treasurer from elected to appointed positions, and by 84% to 16% said no way to rotating the Mayor’s position among the five council members, instead of directly electing the position.

The City Council put the first one on the ballot at a cost of nearly $100,000 in the hopes of saving about $35,000 a year in future years.

The Mayor’s measure added additional costs to the city election for a total of $105,000.

The problem is nobody campaigned for them, other than a ballot statement. There were no signs, no mailers, no door-to-door flyers and no phone banks calling voters to urge them to pass either measure.

The next time council members want to put something on the ballot at taxpayer expense, they need to back that up with the commitment to campaign for its passage.

I was chastised last month for supporting the longtime effort to rename L Street to Marina Way (or Parkway, as city staff proposed and the Planning Commission approved – but the Council rejected) because it would cost, according to staff’s estimate, $40,000.

But by doing so now there would be little to no cost for the city from the state to change the freeway exit signs. Instead if the council changes the street name in the future, it will cost the city about $100,000 for CalTrans to redo the freeway signs.

(On a side note I find it an interesting coincidence that had the council not placed those two measures on the ballot, they would have had enough to pay for the $40,000 street name change and the $65,000 for the July 4^th fireworks and celebration – which was raised through private donations – for a total of exactly $105,000. Hmmm.)

The 16-year-old street name change idea, from the City’s 1996 Economic Development Plan, also included changing the name of A Street to Rivertown Drive. That idea has been expanded to now include 2nd Street, since the two streets are connected. It just makes sense, as that road leads you to and through and is the main street of Rivertown.

It would have been a onetime expense for permanent marketing of Antioch’s historic downtown Rivertown and waterfront – which was the intent of that part of the economic plan.

It’s also part of the intent of bringing back the July 4th fireworks, this year. Come out and enjoy the free show and take a look around Antioch’s historic Rivertown. It was in 1851 at the July 4th picnic that the residents renamed the town Antioch from Smith’s Landing.

By the way, the street names in downtown used to be named after people. They weren’t always letters and numbers. In fact I just saw a copy of the map of downtown with the original street names that Oak View Memorial Park has available. So renaming things is part of our city’s history.

As a Legislature, we worked hard and collaboratively to responsibly achieve a balanced budget with $8 billion in cuts while seeking to protect children and students in California. With the Governor’s line-item vetoes, he has essentially launched the Hunger Games in California. From eliminating $10 million in child nutrition funding, to excluding 14,000 children from our communities’ child care centers, and expelling 12,500 of our poorest children from our State Preschool program, Governor Brown has demanded an unacceptable and unreasonable tribute to be paid to the State Reserve account.

From targeted cuts to State Pre-School, Child Nutrition, Childcare, CalWORKs, where 78% of recipients are children, Healthy Families, and Early Childhood Mental Health Initiative programs, this Governor has proven to have a calculated determination to make the poor children of California pay the highest price. Governor Brown has overplayed his hand and misjudged the appetite of Californians to cause suffering to children.

Assemblywoman Susan A. Bonilla (D-Concord) is the Chair of the Assembly Budget Sub-Committee on Education Finance and currently represents Antioch in the State Assembly.

Anyone for higher taxes? Not I, which is why folks, after seeing a legal notice that the Board of Supervisors was holding a hearing on June 26th to discuss adoption of storm water utility assessments for fiscal 2012-13, I sent a letter to the Board stating that I opposed any increase in fees.

I was concerned that, since taxpayers voted down the Clean Water Fee, the Board might increase the storm water fees. I thought I saw a nexus being that it was the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District who proposed imposition of the Clean Water Fee (the failed election cost approximately $526,5500) but apparently, from the reply I received from Tim Jensen, Senior Civil Engineer of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, there isn’t one.

The good news is that Mr. Jenson informed me that the $25 per year assessment for Antioch will not be increased as all participating cities, towns and the unincorporated county reached their maximum assessed rate in 2008 and there is no proposal or any mechanism in the County or city codes to increase the amount. (So why hold a hearing to discuss adoption for storm water utility assessment for fiscal 2012-13 if no changes were proposed?)

The rest of the news is bad: The Delta Diablo Sanitation District board once again approved another rate increase – this one 7.6% which is outrageous. Antioch Mayor Jim Davis cast the only vote AGAINST the hike – thanks Jim!

Of course, we all know that the Consolidated Fire District and Antioch Unified School District will be asking for more money but my jaw dropped when I heard that the Antioch City Council was considering asking voters to consider a tax for city services on a future ballot.

I can’t wait for the next election!

Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 1205 studied the three open- admission public animal shelters in the county – two operated by the County and one operated by the City of Antioch.

This month, the Antioch Chief of Police sent the Mayor and City Council suggested responses (see below) to the Grand Jury asking that Council transmit “as is” or propose alternative language to the responses. (State law requires the City Council respond to Grand Jury reports).

GRAND JURY FINDING: The Antioch Shelter currently has an insufficient number of volunteers to provide adequate time out of kennels for training, socialization, playtime or exercise for the animals each day, which is part of the humane treatment of animals. REPLY: Respondent disagrees. We are unaware of any widely accepted standards for the ratio of volunteers to animals in a shelter. Furthermore, the number of volunteers a shelter has “on the books” seems less important that the number of effective hours that active volunteers as a whole are providing and what duties they are actually completing. (NOTE: In 2010, the Animal Shelter laid off its volunteer coordinator, losing a resource to recruit, train and supervise volunteers.)

FINDING: The Antioch Shelter spay/neuter fees are higher than fees charged for comparable services by nearby shelters and, for this reason, may discourage adoptions from the shelter. REPLY: Respondent agrees.
FINDING: The cost differences between the shelters (Antioch and the County) are great enough to merit closer examinations of the cost effectiveness: REPLY: Respondent agrees.
FINDING: Both the Antioch Shelter and the County Shelters should examine its cost per animal to ensure the amount being spent provides efficient, effective and humane treatment of the animals. REPLY: The recommendation has been implemented.

FINDING: The Antioch Shelter and the County Shelters should consider establishing advisory councils to provide direction and suggest priorities for each shelter. REPLY: The recommendation is not reasonable. Comment goes on to state the formation of an advisory council would create another step of additional bureaucracy for information to reach the Chief of Police, City Manger and the City Council and that currently there is insufficient staff or resources to support such an advisory council.

By Jeanne Falla

Just about everyone, including presidential candidates, agrees that children need responsible fathers. If a noncustodial parent is able to help raise a child, most believe he or she should be held accountable, even if this could mean ending up on a most wanted poster. Yet the reality is too many barriers exist in our society which actually oppose father involvement.

Let’s suppose Mary gets pregnant by John, her unemployed boyfriend, and both later break up. John, himself the son of an absent dad, visits the baby bringing diapers and seeks joint custody. Yet when John’s day in court arrives, his offer to play Mr. Mom is met with resistance from Mary and the family court system where he is served with a summons to pay thousands in child support or go to jail. In the end, John gives up his fight to co-parent and ends up the absent father no one wants because he feels the system is stacked against him. Unfortunately, scenarios like this which alienate dads and men in general happen all too often.

The push for strong child support and domestic violence protections began with good intentions: to safeguard women and children from violent and financially deadbeat men. But father absence must be addressed by engaging men, not keeping them away due to the actions of a few bad apples. The problem is family breakdown often gets blamed on only men (and not also women) behaving badly, perpetuating the punitive “man bad, woman victim” mindset which discourages active fathering lest a man fail to properly change a diaper. Yet the supermom mindset actually hurts women’s equality because women can’t and shouldn’t be expected to do everything and it’s time, of course, for men to step up to the parenting plate.

Studies show joint custody households, where fathers tend to be actively involved parents, get higher child support awards than sole custody households. This follows the logic that parenting is a job and needs to be seen as one – expecting dads to be responsible without the right to co-rule the roost is no less unfair than expecting a full day’s worth of work without the right to fair working conditions. Leveling the playing field for dads by strengthening joint custody laws and reforming the family courts would do much to help bring back men to the home.

In the end, what we need is a type of social and legal system that’s balanced, where the child’s rights trump those of the mother or father. However, while striving towards this goal, let’s not distance dads from children. If you would like to support advocacy efforts to strengthen father involvement, contact Fathers and Families at www.fathersandfamilies.org.

Falla is a Citizen Advocate Program Organizer with Fathers & Families and a daughter of a divorced dad.

Dear Editor:

Sunday’s Contra Costa Times tells us that 400 people thought they were qualified to be city code enforcer but the city only interviewed three of them. And all three of them turned the job down. Why is that? I thought a job with the city was a good deal.

Who wants to come forward and tell us why three qualified people would turn down a job with the city of Antioch?

If council members don’t know perhaps the three applicants will come forth and tell us why they could not accept the job.

Bob Oliver, Antioch

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Apparently that is what the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conversation District is trying to do, albeit in a different manner than the taxpayer funded $1.5 million dollar campaign to get property owners to approve the “Clean Water” assessment which went down to defeat.

Yup folks, on June 26th (10:00 a.m.) the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors will be holding a public hearing in regard to adoption of storm water utility assessments for fiscal year 2012-2013. Rate setting will affect properties located within the incorporated areas of the following cities, as well as the unincorporated areas: Antioch, Clayton, Concord, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Orinda, Pinole, Oakley, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, San Pablo, San Ramon and Walnut Creek.

Apparently, this will be the ONLY opportunity property owners will get to comment on what is sure to be a rate increase, According to the legal notice, at the hearing the Board will hear and pass upon any oral or WRITTEN objections to the adoption of the proposed 2012-13 fiscal year storm water utility assessments and, upon close of the hearing, may abandon the proposed actions or proceed with same!

Better get cracking folks. Get your letters in to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or appear in person at the hearing.

Made up your mind yet about Proposition 29? Consider who is opposed.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is one. Another is the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, an outfit that, under the guise of saving mom and pop from being taxed out of their home, succeeded (through Prop 13) in giving big tax breaks to corporations, subverting majority rule on spending measures, and taking away control of taxation from local democratically elected officials.

Harry Stoll