By Tim Haile, Executive Director, Contra Costa Transportation Authority

October marks Pedestrian Safety Month, an ideal time to shed light on pedestrians’ safety challenges while navigating our roads. With California’s diverse landscapes, vibrant cities, and outdoor lifestyle, the state naturally encourages walking and biking, while also facing some alarming statistics regarding pedestrian safety. 

According to preliminary data from the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, California’s pedestrian fatality rate is significantly higher than the national rate coming in at 1.29 per 1000,000. 504 pedestrians were killed in crashes involving vehicles in California in 2022, a nearly 10% increase over 2019.

As Executive Director of Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), I find these numbers to be unacceptable. During Pedestrian Safety Month, it’s crucial to recognize the importance of safeguarding our most vulnerable road users: pedestrians. Every day, hundreds of Contra Costa residents walk to work, school, and leisure activities, contributing to our county’s sustainability and quality of life. The first step to making the streets safer for all is through smart transportation systems and plans.

CCTA, in partnership with Contra Costa County, is actively addressing these concerns through the Vision Zero Safety Policy and Implementation Guide. Vision Zero is a comprehensive strategy aimed at eliminating all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while promoting safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. Vision Zero has become a guiding principle in our efforts to enhance pedestrian safety. The key to Vision Zero’s success lies in its data-driven approach, which identifies high-risk areas and factors contributing to pedestrian collisions. By analyzing these insights, we can implement targeted interventions that prioritize the safety of our residents.

In our ongoing commitment to pedestrian safety, CCTA is also in the process of developing a Countywide Transportation Safety Action Plan. The plan will identify strategies to eliminate severe injuries and fatalities. It will consider how to improve safety for all people in the County, including people biking, driving, walking, and taking the train or bus, as well as freight transportation. This plan considers the insights and feedback received from our residents, ensuring that it reflects the real-world experiences and concerns of those who use our streets daily. Residents can use the CCTA’s map-based tool to show where safety is a concern for pedestrians, cyclists, motorists or people with disabilities. 

Pedestrian safety also starts with you. Drivers play a pivotal role in ensuring the well-being of those on foot. Drivers can prevent death and injury by adhering to speed limits and slowing down at intersections, always being prepared to stop at marked and unmarked crosswalks, refraining from blocking crosswalks while waiting to turn, and never driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. By following these guidelines, drivers can actively contribute to a safer environment for pedestrians and all road users, reducing the risk of collisions and promoting a culture of responsible and attentive driving.

When walking, it’s vital to prioritize safety by remaining alert and attentive, avoiding distractions. Whenever possible, make use of designated signalized crosswalks, as these are locations where drivers are more likely to anticipate pedestrian activity. Keep a vigilant eye out for approaching vehicles and always exercise caution when crossing streets. 

As we celebrate Pedestrian Safety Month, let us not only acknowledge the importance of pedestrian safety but also recognize the role of efficient transportation planning and community input in achieving this critical goal. By prioritizing safety, investing in infrastructure, and fostering a culture of responsible transportation, we can ensure that pedestrians can move about our beautiful county with confidence, knowing that their safety is a top priority.

CEO of the Organization for Social Media Safety says Hamas has put your kids at great risk online, parents should lock down or take away kids’ devices  

By Bridget Sharkey, Prime Media Management via prnewswire.com

Social media has long been used as a weapon by terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Now Hamas is using the power of the Internet to terrify, confuse, and demean its victims.  

“Hamas is planting videos on sites like X that show gory and horrific acts of violence, including mass murders and defiled corpses,” said social media safety expert Marc Berkman, CEO of theOrganization for Social Media Safety (OFSMS).   

According to their website, the organization “is a nonprofit, consumer protection organization focused exclusively on social media. We protect against all social media-related dangers through a comprehensive approach that includes education, advocacy, and technology development. We are available to provide expertise for your story on social media-related dangers.”

Berkman says that these videos have millions of views, despite only being recently uploaded.  

“Terrorist groups often use social media platforms to disseminate hate and extreme violence,” he continued. “Parents around the country are receiving alerts from schools and elected officials over concerns that terrorists plan to disseminate distressing videos, including of hostages, through social media. These officials urge parents to delete TikTok and Instagram from their children’s devices as a protective measure.”

Berkman and the OFSMS concur, saying now is a good time to make your kids log off. He also agrees that major social media platforms, including X, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, and Discord, may be used as weapons of war, spreading graphic violence and hateful messaging.  

“This is not a concern limited to TikTok and Instagram,” said the social media expert. “Many platforms already contain graphic, violent videos produced by terrorists. In the past, we have also seen videos of extreme violence shared through social media messaging-based platforms like Snapchat.”  

The Organization for Social Media Safety urges all social media platforms to block or immediately remove any content disseminated directly by a terrorist organization. Berkman and the OFSMS share the following tips for parents:  

• Consider pausing children’s social media access to protect their mental health and well-being. 
• Talk with your children about what to do if they come across violent content (We strongly recommend teaching your child about blocking and reporting.) 
• Consider third-party safety software, like our endorsed choice, Bark, that can alert you if dangerous content, like extreme violence, is shared on your child’s social media account. 

“We all have a responsibility to protect our community from the dangers of social media,” Berkman concludes. “Report and block! Don’t keep scrolling.”

Effort “to bring back a local voice in community planning” co-sponsored by Brentwood Councilwoman

By Daniel Payne, Our Neighborhood Voices

This past week the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative received a title and summary from the office of Attorney General Rob Bonta that is false, misleading and likely to create prejudice against the initiative.

The title and summary provided by Bonta’s office falsely claims that the measure “automatically” overrides the state’s affordable housing laws. It does no such thing. It gives communities the power to shape local growth in a way that better meets affordable housing requirements – and it restores the ability of local communities to negotiate even higher affordable housing rates, which one-size-fits-all laws passed in Sacramento have taken away.

Brentwood District 1 Councilmember Jovita Mendoza is one of the three co-sponsors of the initiative which has been endorsed by the Contra Costa County city councils of Brentwood and Clayton, as well as Oakley Vice Mayor Randy Pope.

In 2021, Bonta’s own office issued a title and summary for the first draft of this initiative that did not include this misleading language. It correctly stated that the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative would return land-use and zoning decisions back to local communities – instead of forcing top-down mandates on cities that damage neighborhoods and only benefit for-profit developers.

In fact, the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative will increase the chances of more affordable housing being built according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. In their report, the LAO states that the initiative “May enable additional flexibility for affordable housing development.” This is exactly the intent of the initiative – to help local cities choose which state housing laws work best for them and modify them in ways that will make them more successful.

The only substantial changes in the new version of the initiative submitted to Bonta’s office this year was the addition of a provision that exempts 100% affordable housing projects at 80% of AMI, and a repeal of Article 34 of the California Constitution that makes it more difficult to create affordable housing.

Yet Bonta’s office still added the argumentative and prejudicial language that the initiative would “automatically override” affordable housing laws.

“Bonta’s claim that our initiative would ‘automatically override’ affordable housing laws is clearly and provably false,” Brentwood City Councilmember and initiative proponent Jovita Mendoza said. “Our initiative would allow cities to choose where and how new housing projects get built, instead of forcing them to comply with blanket mandates from Sacramento that give for-profit developers a blank check to gentrify and destroy our communities.”

The laws that the Attorney General’s office is apparently referring to are not even correctly called “affordable housing” laws. Sacramento politicians have given developers the ability to override local communities and governments to build luxury housing with affordable requirements so low that these new projects contribute to displacement and gentrification.

A law like SB9, which eliminated single family zoning in California, is being challenged in court because it was passed on the premise that it WILL create affordable housing, but clearly will not. “There is nothing in laws like SB9 that would get us anywhere close to the number of new affordable units that the state says we need,” said Kalimah Priforce, an Emeryville City Councilmember and advocate for BIPOC homeownership. “Instead, we will continue to see projects that are largely unaffordable to most working families, communities of color, or other Californians who need housing most. ‘Trickle down housing’ doesn’t work – and we certainly shouldn’t be relying on debunked theories to guide important housing decisions in our state.”

“Without a fair and accurate title and summary, our initiative cannot go forward on the 2024 ballot,” explained Susan Candell, Lafayette City Councilmember and proponent of the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative. “We are weighing our options to sue, although such a delay will run out the clock for an initiative like ours – which relies on volunteer efforts to qualify. But our fight for local democracy will go forward – and we won’t stop until we restore our right to have a say in the future of our own communities.”

“In fact this politicized attack against our initiative is just further evidence that Sacramento will continue to put developer profits over the needs of our communities – unless we stand up and fight back. And while we focus our efforts on seeing that this misleading language is changed, we will continue to grow our grassroots coalition and fight back for our neighborhood voice,” said Redondo Beach City Councilmember and supporter of the initiative Nils Nehrenheim.

Learn more about the Our Neighborhood Voices coalition and how you can get involved at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com

CCTA partners with Choice in Aging, Mobility Matters provides free, door-through-door services for senior residents.

By Federal Glover, Chair, Board of Directors, Contra Costa Transportation Authority

Last week, on National Senior Citizens Day, we were reminded of the barriers that exist for our older community members. While we celebrated our elder citizens’ incredible contributions to society, we reflected on our responsibility to bolster resources that support independence as people age. One resource in particular, transportation, is a crucial component to enhancing our senior citizens’ quality of life and local governments have a responsibility to address the challenges to utilizing essential services.

Throughout California, there are public health and human resources that stay true to the theme of boundless potential in aging, but an element that often gets overlooked is transportation. Transportation, which has a uniquely human element in carrying people through life, has not been designed with senior citizens in mind. Instead, seniors often face countless institutional barriers that prevent them from taking trips to medical appointments or the grocery store – simple trips that are important for people’s independence.

At CCTA, we believe in equitable access for transportation and our “Mobility for All” model doesn’t just address cars, bikes, buses, or trains–but also the mobility needs of our veterans, people with disabilities, and seniors.

There is a gap in accessible transportation for seniors and it is critical to design transportation systems to meet the unique needs that come with aging.

CCTA’s job is to create transportation that all residents can access. Most importantly, we have a responsibility to understand the human element of transportation – to understand how people use our services beyond moving from “Point A” to “Point B”. Whether your destination is a doctor’s appointment, a family dinner, or a book club, transportation is necessary to bring you to and from the places that matter to you. 

CCTA has engaged with community members to understand how residents are using our service and what changes or needs they have. Since 2021, we have used the Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan (ATSP), which has given us direct insights into these community needs. The ATSP was born from the 2017 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). One of our goals of this strategic plan is to become a one-stop-shop for residents, to consolidate our resources so that residents can easily navigate services, and to understand the gaps in those services so that we can best serve our community.

CCTA partners with Choice in Aging, as well as Mobility Matters, which provides free, door-through-door services for senior residents. This system is fueled by over 160 volunteer drivers in the County. We are proud that this program has helped deliver 69,015 rides since 2005. We also support our transit partners’ para transit One Seat One Ride program. Our goal is for seniors and disabled individuals to have “one seat” journeys–so that a trip across the County does not have to involve multiple transfers between trains and buses.

CCTA is constantly looking at ways to use innovation to improve and expand services to older adults. To improve mobility in the Rossmoor Senior Community, early next year CCTA will launch an autonomous shuttle service. These shuttles will keep senior residents connected by bringing them to essential services and goods within their community.

CCTA is committed to continuing our efforts to improve transportation for our senior population. We encourage community feedback to best understand how to fulfill your needs. 

We’ve made remarkable strides but recognize that there is always more we can do to implement the vision of “Mobility for All”. We will continue to knock down barriers so that aging is not seen as a limitation– but rather boundless potential.

Urges voters, taxpayers to call the Capitol to protect Prop 13, see committee members phone numbers below

ACA 1 would make it easier to raise local special taxes by removing the Prop. 13 taxpayer protection of the two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass

ACA 13 was just introduced last week as a devious attempt to stop the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act from passing when it’s on the ballot in Nov. 2024.

By Jon Coupal

Prior to the successful passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, Howard Jarvis tried several times to bring property tax relief to beleaguered California homeowners. While coming close, it wasn’t until 1978 when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13 over the opposition of virtually every political institution and newspaper in California.

As they say, timing is everything. What changed the political dynamic so abruptly in 1978 was the fact that thousands of California homeowners were being taxed out of their homes. That also explains why, to this day, Proposition 13 retains its popularity even as the state has become more “progressive.”

Last week there were two competing press events over Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 (ACA 1), a proposal that would erase part of Proposition 13. As the head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, I was joined at a news conference on the Capitol’s west steps on Wednesday by several legislators who have unequivocally expressed their continued support for Proposition 13 and opposition to ACA 1. Also present were several representatives of other taxpayer groups as well as business organizations suffering under California’s excessive tax burdens.

ACA 1 is a direct attack on Proposition 13 because it would cut the vote threshold needed to pass local special taxes, dropping it from the current two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13 to only 55%. That change would make it easier for local governments to raise taxes.

Since Proposition 13 was enacted in 1978, voters have continued to support the important two-thirds vote protection. That support was reaffirmed with the passage of pro-taxpayer initiatives in 1986, 1996 and 2010.

Many people may not know that the two-thirds vote requirement did not originate in 1978. It has been in the California Constitution since 1879! For more than a century, local property owners have been protected against excessive bond debt by the requirement that local bonds – repaid only by property owners – need a two-thirds vote of the local electorate.

ACA 1 repeals the two-thirds vote protection for tax increases to support “infrastructure,” a term so expansive that local governments would be able to raise taxes for almost any purpose with a vote of just 55% of the electorate. This is a hatchet that chops away at the taxpayer protections in Proposition 13.

ACA 1 proponents are aware of Prop. 13’s enduring popularity, so not once in their over one-hour press event did they mention Proposition 13 by name. Instead, they talked about “protecting democracy,” “local control,” and taking on “right-wing interests.” (Are Californians “right wing” for wanting to keep their home instead of being taxed out of it?) Nor did the supporters of ACA 1 provide any specific example of exactly what lowering the two-thirds vote would purchase, other than to claim that it was essential to address California’s dual crises of housing and homelessness.

Opponents of ACA 1 have noted that making it easier to raise taxes makes no sense in one of the highest taxed states in America. No other state comes close to California’s 13.3% top marginal income tax rate, and we also have the highest state sales tax in America as well as the highest gas tax, not to mention gas prices. And even with Prop. 13, we rank 14th out of 50 states in per capita property tax collections. Californians pay enough.

This is a critical time. As of this writing, ACA 1 has cleared one legislative committee and may be heard by the full Assembly as early as this week. However, its main proponent, Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, admitted at her press conference that she didn’t quite have the votes yet. For that reason, the time is now for all defenders of Proposition 13 and advocates for limited taxation to contact their Assembly representatives and let them know that a vote for ACA 1 is a vote against Proposition 13.

This issue is so important to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that we will withhold our endorsement from any current legislator who fails to vote no on ACA 1.

Committee Hearings this Week, Taxpayers Urged to Call the Capitol

Your immediate help is needed to fight against two proposed constitutional amendments moving fast through the state Assembly. Both of these measures are attacks on PROPOSITION 13. We’re asking all HJTA members and supporters to please call the members of two committees that will be hearing these bills on Wednesday. Please call as soon as possible! Here’s all the information:

NO on ACA 1 – Hearing date: Wednesday, 8/23, Assembly Appropriations Committee

ACA 1 is a direct attack on Proposition 13 that would remove the taxpayer protection of the two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local special taxes. If this measure is enacted, local taxes and bonds for “infrastructure” (nearly everything) and public housing projects would pass with just 55% of the vote instead of 66.67%. This makes it easier to raise taxes, and your taxes could go up after every election.
Please call the members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and urge a NO vote on ACA 1:

Chris Holden (Chair) – (916) 319-2041
Megan Dahle (Vice Chair) – (916) 319-2001
Isaac Bryan – (916) 319-2055
Lisa Calderon – (916) 319-2056
Wendy Carrillo – (916) 319-2052
Diane Dixon – (916) 319-2072 (Please thank Assemblywoman Dixon for opposing ACA 1)
Mike Fong – (916) 319-2049
Gregg Hart – (916) 319-2037
Josh Lowenthal – (916) 319-2069
Devon Mathis – (916) 319-2033 (Please thank Assemblyman Mathis for opposing ACA 1)
Diane Papan – (916) 319-2021
Gail Pellerin – (916) 319-2028
Kate A. Sanchez – (916) 319-2071
Esmeralda Soria – (916) 319-2027
Akilah Weber, M.D. – (916) 319-2079
Lori Wilson – (916) 319-2011 – Represents portions of Eastern Contra Costa County

NO on ACA13 – Hearing date: Wednesday, 8/23, Assembly Elections Committee

ACA 13 was just introduced last week as a devious attempt to stop the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act from passing when it’s on the ballot in November 2024. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act is our initiative constitutional amendment that will restore the Proposition 13 protections that have been eroded by the courts. 

Some of the measure’s key provisions include:

• Require all new taxes passed by the Legislature to be approved by voters
• Restore two-thirds voter approval for all new local special tax increases
• Clearly define what is a tax or fee
• Require truthful descriptions of new tax proposals
• Hold politicians accountable by requiring them to clearly identify how revenue will be spent before any tax or fee is enacted

But ACA 13 would create special rules that make it harder to pass citizen initiatives like this one. If ACA 13 is enacted, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would require a two-thirds vote to pass, instead of the simple majority vote that has been required for all other constitutional amendments since 1849!

Please call the members of the Assembly Elections Committee and urge a NO vote on ACA 13:

Gail Pellerin (Chair) – (916) 319-2028
Tom Lackey (Vice Chair) – (916) 319-2034
Steve Bennett – (916) 319-2038
Bill Essayli – (916) 319-2063
Alex Lee – (916) 319-2024
Evan Low – (916) 319-2026
Blanca Rubio – (916) 319-2048

Please also call your own state representatives and urge them to vote NO on ACA 1 and NO on ACA 13. You can look up their names and contact information at findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov.

Thank you for your help in this critical fight to protect Proposition 13. We greatly appreciate you!
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

By Joe Guzzardi

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker caught up with California Gov. Gavin Newsom to see which of the Democratic leaders that oversee sanctuary states can do the most to accommodate their immigrant community at citizens’ expense.

Prior to Jan. 1, 2023, candidates for California police officers’ jobs were required to be either citizens or permanent residents to qualify. But a law Newsom signed, Senate Bill 960, opened law enforcement positions up to any California resident who possesses either a green card or a valid visa. The new law took effect January 1, 2023.

In July 2023, Pritzker signed HB3751, a bill similar to California’s, that will allow individuals who are legally authorized to work in the United States to apply for the position of police officer, deputy sheriff or special policeman, subject to satisfying that job’s specified requirements. Illinois’ applicant pool would, like California’s, include deferred action for childhood arrival recipients (DACAs), lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and temporary protected status (TPS) holders.

Illinois has more than 35,000 DACAs and about 30,000 LPRs. By-state statistics on TPS are unavailable, but because that program has expanded dramatically since President Biden’s inauguration, it represents a significant total. Currently, 15 nations have been granted TPS, and if history is a guide, their status will never be revoked. Instead, the TPS designees’ list will grow longer. Pritzker’s folly will begin January 1, 2024.

Founded in 1915, the Illinois-based Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, strongly objected to HB3751. The group noted that police officers’ main function is to enforce the law and to ensure that people in their jurisdictions abide by all applicable laws. The union promised that it will “welcome these potential police recruits with open arms once their citizenship status is solidified, and look forward to the unique perspective they can bring to our profession.”

But the FOP asked what message does the legislation send when noncitizens become enforcers of our laws? “This is a potential crisis of confidence in law enforcement at a time when our officers need all of the public confidence they can get.” Making an important point that the FOP overlooked, Republican Illinois State Sen. Chapin Rose added: “It would be a ‘fundamental breach’ of democracy to allow noncitizens to arrest American citizens.”

Pritzker, in a half-truth-filled defense of his controversial legislation, said that about 20 years ago, post-9/11, Chicago and Illinois went on a hiring spree to safeguard against terrorist attacks. Those officers are now eligible for retirement and are leaving the force. Although Chicago’s crime rates are trending down this summer, they remain dangerously high. During a recent weekend, six people were shot and killed, and 27 others were wounded by gunfire, including innocent pedestrians.

Chicago’s police are increasingly frustrated by former Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s illogical limitations on their ability to carry out their duties. For example, officers can’t give chase to fleeing criminals because they’re suspected of having committed minor offenses. Under new Mayor Brandon Johnson, the road ahead for cops may be even rockier. Johnson promised during his campaign to eliminate Chicago’s gang database, a vital tool, and to redirect police funding to social services agencies. Johnson avoided using the phrase “defund the police,” but the end result will be the same. He also recently called events tantamount to riots just “large gatherings .”

If Newsom, Pritzker and Chicago’s administrators governed with more commonsense and less WOKENESS, Illinois and California wouldn’t have driven so many citizens out of those well-paid police jobs that include generous benefits packages. Often noncitizens’ backgrounds are murky; perhaps their ties to their homeland governments will outweigh their fealty to the U.S. If so, the bill put forth by Newsom and Pritzker will create long-term security risks.

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org.

“you do not have a right to admonish people publicly and where they cannot respond.” – Joy Motts

Editor’s Note: At the Antioch City Council meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 8, 2023, comments were made by Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker during the City Council Committee Reports and Communications portion and by Mayor Lamar Thorpe during his Mayor’s Comments, responding to public criticism, and by a resident, directed toward another public speaker. In response, former Antioch Councilwoman Joy Motts, a Rivertown resident and president of Celebrate Antioch Foundation sent the following email to the five council members Tuesday night. It was shared with the Herald, Wednesday afternoon. (For context, see the 1:35:10, 2:16:15 and 2:48:45 marks of the council meeting video)

Mayor and Council,

It was clear tonight, that some on Council are not aware that City Council meetings are held in public not for your benefit, but because these meetings are the business of the people. Whether you like what the people of your city have to say or not, they have every right to communicate to you, their feelings. And to admonish them publicly for expressing their views is to undermine their 1st Amendment rights and discourage residents to participate in our government.

And to say that prior Councils were not blamed or admonished by residents for Antioch’s current problems at that time is absurd. From the minute I was on Council I felt like everything that went wrong, the last 50 years was my fault. And the community let me know and all of us know. It was hard and it’s not easy to take but as a representative of all the residents of Antioch, it is your job.

And what is even worse is you have taught some that support you to bully and embarrass those that don’t agree with them. Andrew Becker should be admonished. He is a bully, how dare anyone disagree with him. He has no right to disparage residents that come to speak their mind at the people’s meetings! You have allowed that. This is not good or fair governance. You have become so accustomed to this behavior that I do not even think you realize it or maybe you like it this way.

You speak of unity, but you are actively discouraging this community to participate unless they agree with you. This never happened when I was on Council or prior councils. Lamar, we sat there and took it, and respected people’s rights. You have the ability to communicate your feelings on your personal pages, or Op Ed’s, or websites but you do not have a right to admonish people publicly and where they cannot respond.

I do not know why anyone who disagrees with a policy, or has a grave concern, or has an idea other than yours would attend a council meeting. And from what I have seen tonight no one will. There were people that came that wanted to speak tonight… but they left. Who would want to suffer the consequences of speaking up? A tragedy for Antioch.

Joy Motts

Antioch

Those who merely received the offensive texts need to be protecting us; DA must release all pages of texts

By Allen D. Payton

It’s time the Antioch Police officers caught up in the scandal of racist and other offensive texts who merely received but didn’t send any of the texts got back to work. With 35 sworn officers currently on paid administrative leave in both the FBI and DA investigation from last year and those included in the text scandal this year, that’s more than one-third of the current officers on the force.  The understaffing is putting us all at risk. In addition, for the purpose of transparency, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office needs to release all pages of the texts so the public can read what was sent and the context.

As of June 12th, there were 98 sworn officers on staff with the department out of 115 authorized in the budget, and 49 on full duty. That’s 0.43 officers per 1,000 on duty. The goal has been 1.2 officers per 1,000 for the past 25 years, which has never been achieved. Minimally we should have 1.0 officers per 1,000 population.

The officers in the text scandal have been on leave for about three months and the investigation has been under way for almost two months – leaving our community less protected and less safe.

Those officers who didn’t send any of the offensive texts, but merely received them and didn’t respond – which is most of them – should have been interviewed, first during the investigation. Unless other information has been discovered during the process, those officers need to be cleared and put back to work protecting Antioch residents and businesses.

For example, as previously reported, on Independence Day, Tuesday, July 4th it took officers an hour to respond to a dangerous sideshow at the intersection of Lone Tree Way and Blue Rock Drive/Golf Course Road because those on duty were dealing with two shootings on the other side of town. In addition, according to a Con Fire spokesman, an ambulance transporting someone to a local hospital had to be diverted around the sideshow. Fortunately, it didn’t have an impact on the patient. But minutes can make a difference in saving someone’s life.

All 35 officers should not be fired, as Mayor Lamar Thorpe twice wrote should happen immediately, first on May 19 then again on June  12, Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker wrote on May 18 and other members of the public have called for. That’s irresponsible and dangerous for our city with a population of over 115,000 residents. Besides, the council members have no say in which officer will or won’t be fired and it’s out of their area of responsibility to call for such a thing, and merely pandering to the public and grandstanding. Frankly, the council members’ calls for the termination of all officers involved could serve to undermine the effort to terminate some of the officers and give them a legal argument that it was done due to political pressure.

The councilmembers know or at least should know better, and that the City must follow the Skelly Hearing disciplinary process and the investigation must be done in accordance with the California Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.

As the East Bay Times’ Editorial Board wrote, “they are entitled to due process. Not all of them have equal culpability. And if their rights are not respected, the city risks undermining the ongoing criminal and internal affairs investigations into their behavior, which would set back the quest for racial justice. Which is why City Council members, especially Mayor Lamar Thorpe, need to step back and let investigators do their work — and stop making politically charged comments that could jeopardize the outcome.”

As I wrote in April, those in APD leadership who received the texts, as a form of discipline for not paying attention to what the officers they were in charge of were doing, need to be demoted. But they should still be put back to work, also.

The focus of the council, police department and investigators must be two-fold: one, terminating and/or disciplining the guilty officers, and two, keeping Antioch safe.

DA Must Release All Pages of Texts

It’s also time the DA’s office released all the pages of the texts to clear up the claims that the the two reports by the D.A. Office’s Inspector Wallace were “misleading and distorted” according to the APOA’s attorney, and the texts included were cherry picked and edited, so the public can see the context in which they were all written. (See related articles here and here)

One text message specifically in question is the following: On 04/24/2020, at 5:49 p.m., APD Sgt. Josh Evans text APD Officer Amiri, “I’ll bury that n****r in my fields.” APD Officer Amiri laughed at the above comment.

A Public Records Act request by this news organization was made on April 27 and denied on May 2.

Deputy District Attorney Sophea Nop denied the request claiming “these records are exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act pursuant to GC (Government Code) §7923.6000(a) and §7927.705.”

According to law.justia.com, the first section referenced “does not require the disclosure of records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes.” The second section referenced “does not require disclosure of records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.”

Nop was informed that those close to Sgt. Evans have said that his text was taken out of context and was in response to a joke about another officer being with Evans’ wife in their yard and Evans was referring to that make believe officer who doesn’t actually exist.

She was then asked to at least provide the complete text exchange between Amiri and Evans prior to that message which was included in the first report.

Nop was asked via email, “How can the public know the context of some of the messages – which officers and others are claiming were taken out of context – if the complete text message exchanges are not provided?” She did not respond.

While I don’t believe it will change much regarding the outcome for the five or six officers who sent the offensive texts and are being sued, for the purpose of transparency, all the texts in their original form must be released.

All pages of the texts are expected to be made available to attorneys representing the officers during the discovery phase of the lawsuit. Perhaps at that time they will also be made available to this and other news organizations for the public to read.