Antioch has faced a number of challenges over the past year—from legal threats by housing developers to unpaid fuel bills, cuts to critical services, vacant commercial properties, a water park that was left closed all summer, and the loss of the El Campanil Theatre. More than ever, the city needs bold leaders who are capable of seeing things as they really are, thinking clearly, and taking decisive action.
In the District 1 council race, only one candidate has those qualities—and it’s not former Antioch councilwoman Joy Motts.
Joy has deep roots and strong ties in the community. Her passion for Antioch and nonprofit work as president of the Celebrate Antioch Foundation, which puts on the city’s Fourth of July Celebration, are commendable. But her track record as an elected official says something different.
Between 2010 and 2014, when Joy served on the Antioch Unified School District Board of Trustees, the district was operating under a 2009 settlement with the ACLU over discriminatory disciplinary practices against students of color. Joy left the board in 2014 with the problem unresolved—in fact, district data showed Black students were suspended more than 2,700 times during the 2013-14 school year compared with 430 white students, according to a report in the East Bay Times. The East County NAACP would later sue the district over similar issues.
In April 2013, when Joy was board president, the families of several special education kindergartners filed a federal lawsuit against the district, alleging a teacher slapped, pinched and verbally abused their children at Mno Grant Elementary and that the district failed to report the abuse to police or Child Protective Services. Trustees voted to pay $8 million to settle the case.
Joy lost reelection to the school board in 2014, ran again in 2016, and lost that race as well. Then in 2018, she was elected to the Antioch City Council.
On June 18, 2020, in the wake of George Floyd’s murder at the hands of Minneapolis police, the city council held special meetings to decide whether to create an ad hoc committee on police reform. The need was obvious, as the Antioch Police Department did not use body cameras, had no formal policy for reviewing deadly use-of-force incidents, and had already settled several costly lawsuits involving in-custody deaths.
After testimony from 700 Antioch residents, some of whom had personally experienced racism and mistreatment by Antioch police, Joy voted against police reform, opting instead for a series of town halls that went nowhere. That decision would have profound consequences on Antioch taxpayers and the city’s reputation.
Four days after Joy’s vote, on June 22, 2020, APD officer Eric Rombough sent a photo on his phone depicting a large naked Black man with his penis exposed sitting on the neck of George Floyd. That text was one of many later uncovered by a Contra Costa District Attorney’s investigation, which showed that dozens of Antioch police officers had exchanged racist and homophobic messages and that some had admitted committing crimes against people of color, including K-9 attacks.
The texting scandal led to the convictions and prison sentences of several Antioch police officers, federal oversight by the U.S. Department of Justice, and $4.6 million paid to settle civil rights claims filed against the city by 23 victims of police misconduct.
Six months after Joy’s vote, four cops showed up to the home of Navy veteran Angelo Quinto, who was experiencing a mental health crisis. One officer knelt on his neck, leading to his death three days later and ultimately a $7.5 million settlement with the city.
It was left to the new city council majority to clean up a mess that made national headlines—a mess that many in the community saw coming, but not Joy.
The progress Antioch has made since then is now in jeopardy. Mayor Ron Bernal—who as city manager was responsible for overseeing the police department when officers were committing crimes against Antioch residents—has already tried to put the Antioch Police Oversight Commission on hold. Meanwhile, the Angelo Quinto Community Response Team, established to prevent another senseless killing, has seen its hours reduced from 24/7 to 12 hours a day, which could place other lives at risk.
The mayor and his deep-pocketed friends are now vigorously supporting Joy’s campaign because they want a rubber-stamp council. But what they want is not what Antioch needs. The city needs leaders who are capable of collaborating, but who are also ready to stand up and fight for those who don’t have a seat at the table and keep the city out of legal jeopardy.
District 1 already has such a leader in Tamisha Torres-Walker.
Tamisha not only supported the creation of the Angelo Quinto Community Response Team, but also the creation of the Antioch Police Oversight Commission, the city’s first civilian police oversight body, and helped advance body cameras for officers and other critical police reforms.
Tamisha fought to bring in over $10 million in outside funding to the Department of Community Resources, including grants to support gun violence prevention and the city’s paid internship program for young adults. She also championed a $34.9 million grant for permanent supportive housing for the city’s unhoused residents and the creation of the Sycamore Square police substation.
And when it was discovered that Antioch had the highest tenant eviction rates during the pandemic, Tamisha supported ordinances to stabilize rents, protect tenants from landlord harassment, and require just cause evictions. She is now pushing for a vacancy tax to hold absentee property owners accountable and reduce blight.
Too often, voters in cities like Antioch choose candidates who know how to get elected but don’t know how to lead. It’s why the same names keep recycling in and out of positions on the school board and city council.
Sure, they care about Antioch and seem to say the right things. Everyone wants downtown revitalization, safe neighborhoods and functional city services. But they lack the courage, vision, and energy to act decisively in critical moments, before it’s too late.
Tamisha Torres-Walker was built for those moments. She has spent her time on the council listening to constituents, doing the work, and using her council seat to advocate for all Antioch residents—and she has the track record to prove it. District 1 voters need to send her back to the council for four more years of progress.
AUSD Superintendent Dr. Darnise Williams is suing the District and Area 5 Trustee Mary Rocha. Photos: AUSD
Dr. Darnise Williams, in her 4th job in the past 6 years, claims a “campaign to remove” her for refusing “to overlook questionable payments” and because she “disclosed fiscal and legal noncompliance to officials empowered to correct it,” plus, “she made an internal complaint concerning discriminatory, biased, harassing, and retaliatory treatment by Board leadership, including conduct directed at her as a Black woman” and makesmultiple accusations against Rocha – the only Trustee to vote against hiring her
“I was the only one who didn’t vote to hire her. But on top of it, it takes three votes to get rid of her and she only targets me. Interesting, huh?” – Trustee Mary Rocha
By Allen D. Payton
Embattled Antioch Unified School District Superintendent Dr. Darnise Williams has responded to being placed on paid leave by suing the District, Area 5 Trustee Mary Rocha and unnamed “DOES 1-50” claiming a list of 12 “Damages” including whistleblower retaliation, discrimination, harassment and more. She is seeking a jury trial.
Specifically, the lawsuit, filed in Contra Costa Superior Court on Sept. 23rd, claims race and color discrimination, sex and gender discrimination, age discrimination, plus, Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) retaliation, harassment/hostile work environment, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, breach of written contract, declaratory relief, defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. According to findlaw.com, “Defamation per se means that a false statement was so inherently harmful that further proof of harm isn’t necessary. The statement would have been likely to cause reputational damage regardless of the context.”
Williams doesn’t want punitive damages against the District, just against Rocha.
Background
On a 4-1 vote, with Board President and Area 2 Trustee Dr. Jag Lathan the only school board member to vote “no”, Williams was placed on paid administrative leave on Aug. 25, 2026, after less than 14 months in the job. Williams was hired during the June 11, 2025 School Board meeting on a 3-1 vote with Rocha the lone dissenter and Area 4 Trustee Olga Cobos-Smith absent. This is Williams’ fourth position in the past six years, her starting annual base salary was $353,045, plus contractual benefits, according to the lawsuit, and she was paid $357,234 last school year. (See related article)
The Board agendized the performance evaluation of Williams for that meeting and during three previous meetings, as well.
At their Special Meeting on May 27, which was not live-streamed, the report out reads, “There was no reportable action taken during closed session.”
Then during the August 5 Special Board Meeting, which was also not live-streamed, the report out of Closed Session reads, “The Board took action by unanimous vote of all trustees present to assign Trustee Cobos-Smith with the duty of compiling the Board’s evaluation of the superintendent consistent with Board Policy 2140.”
Finally, during their Regular Meeting on August 19th, the Board again agendized the performance evaluation of the superintendent. But Lathan did not report out from Closed Session any action on the matter.
Cobos Smith was asked ifthe performance evaluation was ever provided to Dr. Williams.
“The evaluation was complete and submitted to her,” she stated in response.
The school board held a special meeting on Oct. 7th during which they met in Closed Session to discuss the lawsuit. Under item A. described as, “CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—Existing Litigation (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9) Name of Case: Dr. Darnise R. Williams v. Antioch Unified School District, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No. C26-03234.”
Since there was no video of the meeting and the minutes are not yet available on the District’s website, asked about the results from that Closed Session, Cobos Smith stated, “There was no reportable action and Dr. Lathan did not attend. The attorney just shared the complaint with us so that we would know about it through official channels before it went public.”
Yet Williams claims in her lawsuit that the Board did not conduct the oral and written annual performance review required by her employment agreement. But later in her lawsuit she claims to have received an “unsatisfactory assessment,” but reiterated that the Board “did not provide the contractually required oral evaluation.”
Cover page of Dr. Williams’ lawsuit against AUSD, Mary Rocha, et al.
Lawsuit Details
In the 30-page complaint, Williams shares the fact that she “is a Black and African-American woman over the age of forty…and therefore belongs to protected race and color classes.” The lawsuit also claims, “She was…qualified for and capable of performing the Superintendent position and performed that work successfully.”
The lawsuit explains Williams “timely presented a written claim to the District as required by the Government Claims Act. The District did not act within the statutory period, and the claim was deemed rejected.”
To support Williams’ claims of damages, the lawsuit provides general accusations and details against both the District, i.e. the Board of Trustees and staff, and specifically, against Rocha.
She claims, “Rocha…personally participated in the harassment alleged” and “Each DOE Defendant participated in, authorized, ratified, aided, or failed to prevent the unlawful conduct alleged here.”
The Introduction reads, “1. This action arises from a public school district’s campaign to remove its first-year Superintendent after she insisted that public funds, employee compensation, fiscal controls, and Board governance comply with law. Plaintiff was hired to lead and stabilize the District. She did that work. When she refused to overlook questionable payments and disclosed fiscal and legal noncompliance to officials empowered to correct it, influential trustees turned the scrutiny onto her.
“2. The retaliation followed a recognizable sequence: race- and gender-charged remarks; escalating personal hostility; dissemination of accusations that an outside investigation did not substantiate; manipulation of the contractual evaluation process; a manufactured unsatisfactory assessment untethered to the agreed performance goals; and, ultimately, removal from active duty on paid administrative leave while the District moved immediately toward interim leadership.
“3. The paid leave is nevertheless materially adverse: it stripped her of the duties and authority of Superintendent, impaired her reputation and future employability, denied contractual evaluation and compensation rights, and positioned the District to end her employment.
“4. The District did not conduct the oral and written annual performance review required by Plaintiff’s written employment agreement. After Plaintiff invoked the contract’s notice-and-cure procedure, the District still failed to complete the agreed review. Under the contract, her evaluation therefore became satisfactory and the applicable salary-step increase was due retroactively. The District instead issued a procedurally defective document built on generalized and stereotyped criticisms.
“5. Plaintiff seeks…no punitive damages against the District…only against Rocha based on malice, oppression, or fraud shown at trial.”
Specific Claims – Discovered Illegal Payments to Trustees,
Williams’ lawsuit offers details about multiple matters and claims the following:
First, regarding her claim of whistleblower status, under section B. Protected Disclosures and Opposition the superintendent alleges she “discovered cash-in-lieu health-benefit payments to trustees, including Rocha, that Plaintiff reasonably believed were unauthorized or otherwise inconsistent with governing law and lawful use of public funds…stopped or corrected the…payments…disclosed the issue to persons with authority to investigate, discover, or correct the noncompliance…sought legal guidance and refused to approve or perpetuate payments she reasonably believed unlawful.” Williams “also disclosed other fiscal and governance concerns, including unauthorized compensation or salary placements, failures of internal control, and conduct she reasonably believed implicated open-meeting, labor, or public-fund requirements…to District officials, Board members, counsel, auditors, fiscal professionals, and other persons or public bodies with authority over” her “or authority to investigate and correct the reported violations.”
Her complaint claims, “The District, Rocha, and other decisionmakers knew of Plaintiff’s disclosures and protected opposition before taking the adverse actions.”
Williams’ lawsuit also shares that, “She made an internal complaint concerning discriminatory, biased, harassing, and retaliatory treatment by Board leadership, including conduct directed at her as a Black woman.”
Claims Rocha Wanted a Latino Superintendent, Plus, Racial, Gender and Age Discrimination by District
Under section C. Defendants Violated Plaintiff’s Civil Rights, the lawsuit continues, “Rocha told Plaintiff (Williams) in substance that Plaintiff had not been Rocha’s preferred choice because Rocha wanted a Latino Superintendent. Rocha also invoked the prior Black Superintendent having been run out of the District. These remarks directly revealed race and ethnicity as considerations in Rocha’s view of District leadership.”
Williams also claims to have “challenged payments benefiting Rocha” and “Rocha and aligned decisionmakers repeatedly cast” the superintendent “through racialized stereotypes: angry, aggressive, threatening, bullying, incoherent, and unprofessional.” But Williams claims, “Those labels were not supported by specific contemporaneous facts and were inconsistent with witness accounts and investigative findings.”
She also claims that treatment was unfair and inconsistent as “the District treated white administrators and executives more favorably in evaluations, discipline, succession decisions, workplace complaints, and access to a fair process. White counterparts who exercised forceful leadership, enforced fiscal controls, rejected improper demands, or encountered complaints were not subjected to the same racialized labels, irregular procedures, removal of duties, or accelerated replacement activity. The comparative records are within Defendants’ possession and control.” However, only the superintendent is hired directly by the school board, while all other top district leaders are hired by the superintendent.
Williams’ complaint also claims, “race and color were substantial motivating reasons for those actions, as shown by direct race-based remarks, racialized stereotypes, materially less favorable treatment than similarly situated white counterparts, disparate handling of complaints, failure to follow objective procedures, and the participation of biased decisionmakers” and she was subjected as “a Black woman in the District’s highest executive position, to gendered and intersectional stereotypes” and that she was treated differently than “similarly situated male leaders” and that her “sex and gender were substantial motivating reasons for the altered evaluation, denial of compensation rights, removal of duties, paid leave, and succession activity, independently and in combination with race and color.”
Finally, Williams claims she “was over forty and qualified for the Superintendent position” and that “decisionmakers favored materially younger candidates for interim or permanent leadership, evaluated younger leaders more favorably, and considered Plaintiff’s age when accelerating succession planning” and claims further that her “age was a substantial motivating reason for the altered evaluation, denial of compensation rights, removal of duties, paid leave, and succession activity.”
Yet, after placing Williams on leave, the Board hired a retired superintendent, Jose Banda, who began his education career in 1984, as the District’s interim superintendent which would place his age to be in the mid-60’s.
Alleged Physical Incident with Rocha
Under section D. Manufactured Complaints and a Predetermined Evaluation, Williams claims an alleged physical incident with Rocha was “a brief interaction” in which she “did not yell at, threaten, touch, hit, block, or accost Rocha, and did not shake a phone in her face. Contemporaneous witnesses reported that Plaintiff was not angry and did nothing improper.” Further, the superintendent claims, “Rocha initially indicated that Plaintiff’s phone was not in her face and that she was fine. She later filed a formal complaint portraying the exchange as angry, aggressive, threatening, and physical.”
Williams’ lawsuit also claims that Rocha “later falsely stated as an asserted fact that Plaintiff hit or physically assaulted her” and “knew the accusation was false because no such contact occurred” with which Rocha disagrees (see below), and that, “Rocha advanced the accusation at a critical point in Plaintiff’s evaluation cycle, circulated it within the Board, and used it to advocate for Plaintiff’s removal.”
The superintendent’s complaint further explains, “An outside investigation did not sustain the principal accusation against Plaintiff,” with which Rocha agrees (see below). But Williams states, “The District nevertheless continued to rely on the accusation’s stigmatizing themes and allowed Rocha to participate in decisions affecting Plaintiff.”
Unfair, Incomplete Evaluation, Changed Process, Not Neutral or Done in Good-Faith
In that same section, Williams claims, “Before a fair evaluation was completed, Board members and agents changed the agreed process, marginalized the agreed goals, and relied on generalized complaints that staff felt bullied, that Plaintiff’s communications lacked clarity, that accountability was absent, and that social-media complaints had increased.” Further the superintendent claims the Board, “did not fairly apply the agreed instrument to the mutually established goals, and did not identify concrete facts sufficient to permit meaningful response,” and that “The assessment was signed or supported by persons who had participated in accusations against Plaintiff or had conflicts affecting their neutrality. Other trustees did not sign it. The process was irreconcilable with a neutral, good-faith evaluation.”
Finally in that section, Williams alleges, she “timely submitted a detailed written rebuttal. Defendants did not cure the process or apply the contract’s deemed-satisfactory provision and earned salary increase.”
Alleges Rocha Committed Unlawful Conduct, Made Defamatory Statements
Under section E. Rocha’s Unlawful Conduct and Defamatory Statements, Williams repeats her accusations against Rocha and further claims the Area 5 Trustee, “voluntarily republished the false accusation” that Williams “hit or physically assaulted” Rocha both “orally and in writing to District employees, community members, and other third persons who had no official role in, legitimate need for, or common interest in any such proceeding” and that “Those extrajudicial republications were not made in any official proceeding, were not made to initiate or achieve the objects of any official proceeding, and were not logically related to any such proceeding.”
Williams further claims that Rocha’s accusations, “directly injured Plaintiff in her profession as Superintendent by portraying her as violent, dangerous, and unfit to lead a public school district. It caused presumed and actual reputational, professional, economic, and emotional harm” and “District administrators and supervisory employees knew or reasonably should have known of Rocha’s hostility, bias, escalating retaliation, false accusation, and the foreseeable risk of reputational and emotional harm. They nevertheless failed to use reasonable care to separate conflicted actors, supervise the process, prevent unnecessary dissemination, correct known falsehoods, and conduct a neutral evaluation and investigation.”
Thus, Williams’ lawsuit asserts, “Those operational failures were negligent acts and omissions of District employees acting within the scope of their employment, not a claim that the District is directly liable at common law or liable
for Rocha’s misrepresentation” and their “conduct caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress and the other injuries alleged above.”
Alleges Being Placed on Leave by Board Was “Planned”
Finally, under section F. Paid Administrative Leave and Continuing Harm, Williams’ lawsuit claims that since, for the special Board meeting on Aug. 25th, “the agenda combined Plaintiff’s evaluation, dismissal or discipline, and appointment of interim leadership” the “sequence reflected that the result had been planned before any lawful and fair decision making process was completed.”
Actually, both terms “acting” and “interim” were included on the agenda for that meeting, and the items were options provided to the Board so, that if the second action was taken, they could take the third action and not have to wait to come back at a future meeting to appoint an acting superintendent. The three agenda items read: “A. Public Employee Evaluation – Superintendent; B. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release; and C. Public Employee Appointment – Acting and/or Interim Superintendent.”
However, it does appear that both individuals to fill the roles of acting and interim superintendent were already lined up. After announcing Williams had been placed on leave, Board President Dr. Jag Lathan reported out that the Board also, “took action in Closed Session by a unanimous vote…to appoint Ed Dacus as Acting Superintendent effective August 26th through August 30th, 20206 and Jose Banda as Interim Superintendent effective August 31st, 20206 through and until his services are no longer needed.”
Williams lawsuit claims, “When immediate termination could not lawfully proceed at that meeting, Defendants relied on a separate electronic-signature allegation as a basis to remove Plaintiff from active duty and open another investigation,” and that “interim or successor activity began before the formal leave decision, further showing pretext and predetermined removal.”
As a result, she alleges, “The leave nevertheless removed Plaintiff’s authority, duties, access, and professional platform as Superintendent; stigmatized her before staff and the community; interfered with contractual performance; impaired her reputation and future earning capacity; and denied the salary increase due under the agreement,” and she “has suffered and continues to suffer economic loss, lost contractual compensation and benefits, loss of professional opportunities, injury to reputation, humiliation, anxiety, panic symptoms, sleep disruption, headaches, emotional distress, and related harm.”
Finally, Williams complaint claims, “The temporal proximity, shifting explanations, deviation from established procedure, selective investigations, direct bias evidence, and use of unsupported stereotypes demonstrate that Plaintiff’s protected disclosures and protected characteristics were substantial or contributing reasons for the adverse actions,” and “If Defendants terminate her or otherwise reduce compensation, she will seek the resulting back pay, front pay, severance, benefits, retirement losses, and future earning losses.”
Causes of Action
The lawsuit then lists the 12 causes of action:
1. Whistleblower Retaliation — Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 1102.6 Against District and DOES 1–25
2. Race and Color Discrimination — Government Code § 12940(a) Against District and DOES 1–25
3. Sex and Gender Discrimination — Government Code § 12940(a) Against District and DOES 1–25
4. Age Discrimination — Government Code § 12940(a) Against District and DOES 1–25
5. FEHA Retaliation — Government Code § 12940(h) Against District and DOES 1–25
6. Harassment and Hostile Work Environment — Government Code § 12940(j) Against All Defendants
7. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation – Government Code § 12940(k) Against District and DOES 1–25
8. Breach of Written Contract Against District and DOES 1–25
9. Declaratory Relief Against District and DOES 1–25
10. Defamation Per Se Against Rocha and DOES 26–30
11. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against Rocha and DOES 26–30
12. Negligence — Government Code §§ 815, 815.2, and 820 Against District and DOES 31–50
Relief Sought
Williams seeks the following 11 items as relief:
From the District she wants, “general, special, compensatory, and consequential damages according to proof, including emotional-distress and reputational damages;
“economic damages…including unpaid contractual compensation and benefits, lost professional opportunities, and impaired earning capacity;
“back pay, front pay, severance, lost benefits, retirement losses, and future earnings to the extent such losses accrue and are recoverable; and
“the civil penalty authorized by Labor Code section 1102.5(f); That section is about retaliation and reads, “an employer is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per employee for each violation of this section to be awarded to the employee who was retaliated against.”
Williams also seeks, “declaratory relief determining the parties’ rights and obligations under the employment agreement;
“the District to correct or remove the defective evaluation, honor the deemed-satisfactory and salary provisions, cease unlawful retaliation and discrimination, preserve relevant evidence, and provide other appropriate prospective relief;
“reasonable attorney’s fees; and costs of suit and prejudgment and postjudgment interest as permitted by law.”
From Rocha Williams wants, “presumed and actual damages for defamation per se against Rocha, including reputational, professional, and economic harm; punitive and exemplary damages against Rocha only on the harassment, defamation, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims, in an amount sufficient to punish and deter.”
Finally, Williams wants, “other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.”
Rocha Responds, Doesn’t Have Copy of Lawsuit
Rocha is the only incumbent running for re-election and the only one specifically named in the lawsuit.
When reached for comment Trustee Rocha said, “I was the only one who didn’t vote to hire her. But on top of it, it takes three votes to get rid of her and she only targets me. Interesting, huh?”
“She’s suing me for $5 million, is what I was told,” she added. But the lawsuit does not list any specific total dollar amount that Williams is seeking.
Asked if she attended the Oct. 7th Closed Session meeting Rocha said, “I was there.” Asked if she had to hire her own attorney she said, “No, not under these circumstances since I’m under the school board and the school district attorney represents me, is my understanding.”
Asked if she’s seen the lawsuit or has a copy of it, Rocha said, “I haven’t asked. I haven’t even been bothered with it, right now.” But it was reviewed with her and the other Board members during their Closed Session meeting on Oct. 7th.
Asked about the claim that she told Williams she wanted a Latino superintendent instead, Rocha said, “Yes, it’s true I didn’t vote for her. But that doesn’t mean I’m racist. I told her about the Hispanic candidate and that they were both equal in their background. But majority rules.”
“A majority of students in the District are Hispanic,” she pointed out.
Rocha also spoke about the incident with Williams when she claims things got physical saying, “It was during one of the meetings at the Deer Valley High theater between the restrooms and the state. “Dee saw it happen and stepped in between us.”
“I filed a letter to put in her file. I have never done that in my life. The attorney found it was no cause,” she added.
“They’re trying to find something to kick me out because they haven’t been able to,” Rocha stated. Then about why she’s running again said, “I want to get back there because I want to clean up things she’s made a mess of.”
“When people look at the disaster in the District, they’re going to think I’m part of it. But I didn’t vote for her. I didn’t vote for the wages. I didn’t vote for a lot of things,” Rocha stated. “I’ve been fighting this all the way, but I didn’t have the other two votes. Then two of them did join me,” referring to Brown and Cobos Smith. She said that occurred following the incident when things allegedly got physical.
Rocha faces one opponent in the November election, which will be held on Tuesday, Nov. 3rd. Lathan chose not to run for re-election for Area 2 Trustee and only Roxanne Reece filed to run.
How do we move forward when it feels like we keep taking steps backward?
That’s the question I find myself asking every time a new City Council agenda is released – and why I talk so much.
Across the Bay Area and throughout California, communities are finding creative ways to adapt to a changing economy, workforce shortages, tightening budgets and the evolving needs of residents. They are identifying opportunities, thinking bigger and finding ways to move projects forward.
For example:
Brentwood, CA is nearly complete with the Sand Creek Sports Complex
Kern County is developing one of California’s largest master-planned active-lifestyle communities for seniors.
Martinez has a draft of what its waterfront could look like.
Oakley, CA is breaking ground on the Amtrak station this week and has a 55-acre park plus other sports fields coming in the future.
Ontario, CA is developing a 200-acre sports empire with a 6,500 seat baseball stadium and eight baseball/softball diamonds.
Pittsburg, CA Dream Courts are nearing completion.
Plumas Lake, north of Sacramento, is getting a wave park on more than 100 acres.
Rancho Cordova is moving forward with plans for a 7,500-plus-seat arena.
Richmond, CA has $550 million coming from Chevron that they get to put to work.
Walnut Creek, CA is making major improvements in Heather Farms.
Antioch…. Crickets.
Actually, scratch that. In Antioch, we are losing things such as the El Campanil Theatre, Babe Ruth Fields, our Amtrak Station and are mall is on its last leg.
Every other community in State of California isn’t sitting around waiting for opportunity to knock. They’re creating it by doing the work and actually being inviting—it also helps when a city is clean and crime is under control.
For a decade, Antioch has used the word “opportunity” as its motto, yet actions say otherwise. At what point do we stop talking about opportunity and instead put shovels in the ground and begin working towards our potential.
Too often, it feels like we wait, hope something happens or throw up our hands before we even get started. That mentality has to change. Our city deserves better, our residents deserve better, and our future is worth fighting for.
We have so many underutilized assets that its embarrassing – the delta waterfront, the foothills of Mount Diablo, our agricultural heritage. Instead, Antioch apparently has lost its identity and we have no idea what we want to be in 10, 20, or 30 years from now.
It’s difficult to create a roadmap for the future when we haven’t even agreed on where we’re trying to go. There is no map. There is no vision. There is no plan.
And that’s where leadership matters.
If we want meaningful plans that reflect the priorities, needs and aspirations of our residents, we need a City Hall that is capable of helping lead those conversations. That requires strong leadership from the city manager’s office, competent department heads and a culture that encourages innovation, accountability and problem-solving.
Unfortunately, when leadership breaks down, the entire organization suffers – which we are experiencing right now with Band-Aid solutions to lipstick on a pig commentary.
How can we expect staff, or even investors, to bring forward bold ideas, pursue economic development opportunities or engage residents in meaningful discussions when we are still struggling to manage basic contracts?
Look no further than what happened at the last City Council meeting.
I raised concerns about nearly $500,000 in contract amendments involving work at the water park. These amendments were placed on the consent calendar, where items are typically approved without discussion.
The council ultimately approved the amendments, potentially avoiding a legal dispute with the contractor.
But here’s the problem: The work had already been completed nearly a month before the amendments were brought to the council for approval.
Think about that for a moment.
Under the city’s contracting rules, agreements exceeding $50,000 require City Council approval. Yet somehow, additional work approaching half a million dollars was either authorized beyond the appropriate approval process or allowed to proceed without sufficient oversight.
Then, after the work was completed, the council was essentially asked to approve the bill.
What would have happened if the council had voted no?
Would the city have faced a lawsuit? Would taxpayers have been left paying even more? Who was responsible for ensuring the proper approvals were obtained before the work began?
These aren’t minor administrative questions. They go directly to accountability, communication, financial oversight and the basic responsibility of protecting taxpayer dollars.
And frankly, the City Council should never be put in a position where it is asked to approve nearly $500,000 in additional spending after the work is already finished.
This is precisely the type of dysfunction that erodes public confidence in City Hall – and this isn’t even bringing up the staff report on the Economic Development Department and staff mailing in the item for council to basically work through with few details and boundaries, such as the budget.
I realize I am a candidate in Antioch District 4, but with an election coming quickly, I would hope all voters would require candidates to actually explain how they intend to fix basic problems at city hall. Not with campaign rhetoric, talking point, fancy slogans we here every year, but provide an actual plan that could result in real solutions.
Perhaps Mayor Pro Tem Don Freitas is onto something with his request for a centralized purchasing department responsible for all contract administration, compliance, and ensuring proper procedures are followed. It warrants some serious consideration given the water park example above.
It’s a practical proposal that deserves discussion which apparently went over the head of the rest of the city council.
There is no doubt in my mind that many parts of City Hall seem to operate like the Wild West, with inconsistent oversight, questionable communication and problems being addressed only after they’ve already occurred.
That isn’t how a professional organization should function, particularly one responsible for managing millions of dollars in public funds. It is almost worth a call to the Grand Jury and let them see if my hunches are correct.
Antioch needs leadership that sets expectations, holds departments accountable, empowers employees to succeed and ensures that basic government operations are handled correctly.
We also need a City Council willing to require those standards rather than simply accepting explanations after the fact.
Bottom line: You cannot build a city of opportunity on a foundation of dysfunction and not everyone playing by the same rulebook.
We should be talking about economic development, new amenities, attracting investment, supporting local businesses and creating a community that future generations are proud to call home. You know, showcasing potential.
Instead, we’re spending valuable time cleaning up preventable mistakes over and over again.
Our community has tremendous potential. The location, the people, the natural beauty and the opportunities are all here. What we need now is the leadership, vision and discipline to put those assets to work.
We shouldn’t have to wait another year or two for competent management, better communication and basic accountability. And we certainly shouldn’t have to wait for detail oriented staff reports with all the information that would inform a community – it would actually shorten council meetings.
Antioch should understand that opportunity isn’t something you hang on a wall or put on letterhead and it happens. It’s something you pursue, plan for and deliver.
And until City Hall starts operating with that mindset, we’re going to keep asking the same frustrating question: How do we move forward when we keep shooting ourselves in the foot with the same issues over and over again.
The Antioch Police Officers’ Association (APOA) is pleased to announce its endorsement of Sandra White for City Council District 4 and Joy Motts for City Council District 1.
Our members are dedicated to protecting and serving the people of Antioch, and we believe strong, collaborative leadership at City Hall is essential to that mission. Sandra White and Joy Motts have shown a commitment to public safety and to the future of this community. We are proud to support them.
The APOA’s endorsement reflects its members’ shared goal of a safe, thriving Antioch for residents, families, and local businesses. The Association looks forward to working with both candidates to support the city’s police department, strengthen community trust, and build a better future for Antioch.
The APOA encourages all Antioch residents to learn about the candidates, make a plan to vote, and take part in the upcoming election.
Including Antioch Council candidates Joy Motts, Monica Wilson and Matty Matthews Alappat
By Kaleo Mark, Community Organizer, Seamless Bay Area
Bay Area – A coalition of 28 transit, bike, disability, and street safety advocates from around the Bay Area published the responses from over 250 candidates for local, state, and federal office in our “Bay Area Transportation Candidate Questionnaire.”
The questionnaire responses will help voters across the Bay Area make more informed decisions about the candidates who, if elected, will be positioned to significantly determine the future of how Bay Area residents get around. Candidates shared their perspectives on designing our streets to be safer for all, making transit a more desirable option, and addressing the transportation sector’s role in climate change.
How we get around and the barriers we face in that process affect nearly every aspect of our lives like housing, healthcare, economic development, safety, education, and much more.
“Local elected officials play critical roles on local regional transportation bodies and boards around the Bay Area and are influential in transit ballot funding campaigns. It is essential for people running for office to know the issues, and to understand that there is an active constituency who care about transit and active transportation and consider these issues in voting,” said Adina Levin, Executive Director at Seamless Bay Area.
2026 is an especially important year for Bay Area public transit, with voters casting their votes on two ballot measures that will determine the future of our region’s transit: Measure RTM across Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties and Prop H in San Francisco.
Top candidates in high-profile races across the Bay Area responded to this questionnaire, including:
Region-wide
22 responses from mayoral candidates running in Richmond, Alameda, Dublin, Hayward, Oakland, Santa Clara, Fairfield, and more.
Responses from City Council candidates running in 74 different cities across the Bay Area.
East Bay
Aisha Wahab in the 14th Congressional District race.
Scott Sakakihara and Linda Price in the State Senate District 10 race in the East and South Bay to replace Senator Aisha Wahab.
Adriana Valencia in AC Transit Ward 3 race.
80 candidates for City Council races across Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
“When it comes to how we get to where we’re going, and the options we have for how we get around, our local, county, and state elected officials have a massive impact.” said Carter Lavin, co-founder of Transbay Coalition. “Now more than ever, local electeds can make a big difference on things like whether or not it is safe to cross your street, or if your bus is on time, or even if there is a bus going where you want to go. Although candidates rarely lead with their transportation policies, transportation impacts every voter every day so voters deserve to know where candidates stand on the issue.”
“The Bay Area’s elected officials will have a critical role to play in saving public transit. Our transportation systems are at a tipping point, with many facing huge deficits. Therefore, it’s important now more than ever to elect leaders at all levels who will support a sustainable and equitable funding solution for our vital transit providers,” said Abibat Rahman-Davies, Transportation Policy Manager for Transform.
“Persons with disabilities depend on public transportation for everything from going to the doctor to going to work in the morning! Finding out how candidates stand on transit is vital to our very existence!” said Warren Cushman, Community Organizer at Community Resources for Independent Living.
“Transit service is the lifeblood of a community – it allows economic, social and educational opportunities for everyone,” said Abigail Zoger, a professor and lead at North Bay Transit Riders. “In Marin and Sonoma, the lack of night service means the community college evening classes are inaccessible to many. One student reported missing the last bus and having to walk 4 hours home at night.”
“Over the past year, San Francisco Transit Riders has mobilized thousands of voters to speak up and demand sustainable solutions from their elected officials to fund and improve public transportation,” said Dylan Fabris, Community and Policy Director at San Francisco Transit Riders. “San Franciscans depend on public transportation so it is important for them to know how their candidates shape up on the transportation issues that affect their lives every day.”
“Bike East Bay believes in a transportation future where owning and maintaining a car is not a prerequisite to moving around the East Bay with freedom. We want to see a system that is safer, cleaner, and more seamlessly integrated than what currently exists,” said Justin Hu-Nguyen, Executive Co-Director of Mobility Justice at Bike East Bay.
“With the future of reliable transit and e-bike access on the line, California’s chance at achieving climate goals has never been more dire. Before we vote, we must know that incoming elected officials will not just support transit, biking, and walking, they will fight for it. An affordable, equitable Bay Area with clean air depends on it,” said Amy Thomson, Policy Director at Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition.
“A strong public transportation system is a crucial component in making biking and rolling safe, convenient and welcoming to everyone in San Francisco,” says Rachel Clyde, senior community organizer for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. “We need leaders who will champion innovative solutions for improving all forms of sustainable transportation in our communities.”
“Public transit massively extends the range of the bicycle. We need robust public transit in order to efficiently traverse the Bay Area with the powerful combination of bike and public transit,” said Bruce Dughi, co-founder of BikeWalk Castro Valley.
About Seamless Bay Area
Seamless Bay Area is a public transportation advocacy group working to transform the Bay Area’s public transit into a world-class, unified, equitable, and widely-used system by building a diverse movement for change and promoting policy reforms. More at seamlessbayarea.org.
By Gail Murray, League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley
How secure are our elections? On Thursday, September 24 at 2:00 p.m., join a Community Conversations informative webinar exploring the safeguards that protect our voting systems and ensure every eligible vote is counted accurately.
Panelists will describe election security, ballot protection, and the processes that help maintain public confidence in our democracy. Whether you’re a new voter or a longtime election volunteer, you’ll leave with a better understanding of how safe and secure our elections really are.
Panelists:
Kristin Connelly, Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters
Reelected in June; focus is on voter access, election transparency and battling election misinformation.
Helen Hutchison, past president of the League of Women Voters of California
Serving at the state League, worked on initiative and referendum reform, ballot measures and redistricting.
Information on how to access the Zoom webinar will be sent to your email address 24 hours before the program.
The webinar will have simultaneous Spanish interpretation and the Contra Costa County Library will provide closed captioning. This program will be recorded and uploaded to the Library’s YouTube and the LWVDV YouTube channels after the event. For special accommodations, please contact the Library with 72 hours’ notice.
Sponsors include the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley, the League of Women Voters of West Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County Library and Contra Costa TV.
Hear from U.S. Constitutional scholars on Constitution Dayin-person or online
By Gail Murray, League of Women Voters Diablo Valley
On Constitution Day, September 17, two eminent U.S. Constitutional scholars will discuss the challenges of maintaining effective presidential leadership while preventing abuse of power. Their conversation will be held from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.at St. Mary’s College in Moraga in the Claeys Room of the Soda Center and will be available simultaneously on Zoom.
Speakers will be:
Vikram Amar, the Daniel J. Dykstra Distinguished Professor of Law at UC Davis Law School. Amar is one of the most eminent and frequently cited authorities in constitutional law.
Dan Farber, the Sho Sato Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Edley Center on Law & Democracy at UC Berkeley Law School. Farber is the author of Contested Ground: How to Understand the Limits on Presidential Power.
Recent public debates have renewed longstanding constitutional questions about the proper scope of executive power. The speakers will engage in a discussion about perennial questions:
How should we balance the need for effective leadership with the need to prevent abuse of power?
Have we achieved that balance?
What would the founders think about the powers of the modern presidency?
Professor Barbara McGraw, Director of the Center for Engaged Religious Pluralism and professor of Social Ethics, Law, and Public Life at Saint Mary’s College will moderate the discussion.
Professor Steve Woolpert of St. Mary’s College, an organizer of the event, is available for interviews. Contact woolpert@stmarys-ca.edu He can speak about this panel and other activities around the 250th anniversary of the U.S. and the Declaration of Independence.
The Contra Costa County Library will provide closed captioning for this event, and the Library and the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley (LWVDV) are underwriting simultaneous Spanish translation. This program will be recorded and uploaded to the Library and LWVDV YouTube channels after the event.
For more information, contact Diane Bianchi of the LWVDV at programs@lwvdv.org
Sponsors of the event are St. Mary’s College, The Disney Forum, the League of Women Voters Diablo Valley, the League of Women Voters West Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County Library and CCTV.
Meet your candidates for Antioch City Council and Antioch School Board
By NAACP East Contra Costa County Branch
The East Contra Costa County Branch of the NAACP invites you to join us for an important evening of civic engagement and community dialogue at our upcoming Candidates’ Night, September 24 beginning at 6:30 p.m.
This is your opportunity to hear directly from candidates for Antioch City Council and Antioch School Board, learn about their priorities, and hear their vision for the future of our community.
The event will include Q&A Session, Personal Introductions, Community Discussions and Light Refreshments.
Your voice matters. An informed community is an empowered community, and we encourage all residents, voters, families, and community stakeholders to attend and participate.
Come. Listen. Ask questions. Be informed. Be engaged.
This is a free event. We request that each attendee register and present their registration at the door. Thank you.
