The Contra Costa Taxpayers Association (CoCoTax) invites you to attend a Board and Members Meeting Meeting at Denny’s Restaurant at 1313 Willow Pass Road, Concord, on Friday June 27, 2025, at 11:45 am. Please register in advance on the CoCoTax website where you can pay online or bring cash or check on Friday and pay at the door: $25 for members, $30 for guests.
MEET OUR SPEAKER: SENECA SCOTT
Seneca Scott moved to Oakland in 2012 to work as the East Bay Director for SEIU Local 1021, representing and negotiating improvements to wages and working conditions for thousands of workers in East Bay cities, most notably Oakland. He also co-founded community groups Bottoms Up Community Gardens and Oakhella.
In 2020, Seneca ran for City Council to bring a voice to his neighbors that he felt was being ignored.
He later led the successful effort to recall Mayor Sheng Thao and started the YouTube channel Gotham Oakland. He also frequently posts on X about the failures of Oakland’s progressive leadership.
Seneca has worked as a Labor leader and community organizer for over 20 years. He earned his B.S. from Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
Oakland’s Crisis and Its Implications for Other Cities and Counties
Despite levying high taxes, Oakland suffers from high crime, business closures, blight, and uncontrolled homeless encampments. The City has also faced repeated fiscal crises in recent years.
As Seneca will discuss, the explanations for Oakland’s problems include public corruption and the dominance of a progressive ideology which sounds noble but does a disservice to most residents.
We’ll also learn what lessons Oakland’s troubles might hold for neighboring cities, and whether we in Contra Costa County have anything to worry about
Contra Costa D.A. Diana Becton (Herald file photo) and Recall organizers. Source: Recall of District Attorney Diana Becton
Says she “has taken bold actions to protect our communities” recall “misrepresents her record”
Recall supporters claim Becton “publicly opposed Proposition 36”; “failed to provide the justice” and for “disgraceful treatment of…families of…crime victims”
By Allen D. Payton
Although she had seven days to respond to being served with recall papers on St. Patrick’s Day, March 17, 2025, just four days later, on March 21, 2025, Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton provided her answer to the effort against her
She signed the letter written in third person which reads:
“The recall against DA Becton is an effort to undermine the will of the people of Contra Costa County. In 2018 and 2022, the voters decisively chose DA Becton because they agreed with and trust her steadfast dedication to public safety, fairness, and justice for all.
DA Becton has taken bold actions to protect our communities – aggressively prosecuting violent offenders, addressing organized retail theft, human trafficking, hate crimes, and eliminating backlogs of untested sexual assault kits. Becton expanded victim support services and pioneered proactive crime prevention programs, to reduce crime before it happens. This recall is not about safety – it’s a politically motivated attack that misrepresents her record and undermines the will of Contra Costa voters. DA Becton’s approach balances accountability with smart, evidence-based policies that reduce crime and keep our neighborhoods safe. DA Becton remains committed to justice, transparency, and creating communities where all residents can thrive. We urge you to reject the recall and stand with DA Becton in continuing to build a safer, more just Contra Costa County. NO on the recall. Let’s move forward together.
Diana Becton
—————-
Although not a required step in the process, in response to Becton’s answer, recall supporters sent the following letter to her, today, signed by Gwyn Gabe, the father of Alexis Gabe, the young Oakley woman who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 2022:
April 15, 2025
Dear District Attorney Diana Becton,
This letter serves as our response to your Answer to our Notice of Intent to Recall you from office.
Your claim that the Recall is a politically motivated attack against you is false. I am a democrat, just as you are, and I even voted for you when you ran for District Attorney in 2017. I believed that you would excel as the District Attorney of Contra Costa County, but you have proven that not to be true. The recall effort against you is not about your political affiliation; it is solely focused on your abysmal performance in office. Your failure to enforce our laws has increased crime and endangered our community.
You publicly opposed Proposition 36 which created felony accountability for drug and theft offenses, proving your troubling alignment with criminal interests. Proposition 36 was passed in Contra Costa County by an overwhelming majority of the voters. Clearly, your policies which encouraged crime are not in line with the will of the voters in Contra Costa County. Additionally, your lack of transparency concerning crime rates in our county and your efforts to keep criminals out of jail to commit more crimes have left many residents disillusioned. We stand with crime victims who have been victimized during your administration, who are frustrated with the lack of accountability for criminals, and who are hopeless in their quest for justice. And we stand with the business owners who face rampant on-going thefts and burglaries from repeat offenders while you ignore the issue.
Your disgraceful treatment of my family, and the families of other crime victims, violated our constitutional Marsy’s Law Rights and failed to provide the justice we rightfully deserve. However, our decision to pursue this recall is not driven by a desire for revenge. Our only goal is to ensure that you are removed from office and prevented from continuing to deny justice to other families in the future. We deserve a District Attorney who shows compassion for victims while holding criminals accountable for their actions. We stand united to ensure that your time in office comes to an end.
Sincerely,
Gwyn Gabe
(Father of Alexis Gabe)
Organizer & Proponent for the Recall of District Attorney Diana Becton
Process
According to the California Secretary of State’s Procedures for Recalling State and Local Officials, the next step in the recall process for local officials requires the proponents to prepare the recall petition for circulation.
Recall organizers said, “we expect to learn this week whether our second submission of the Petition to Recall has been approved, allowing us to begin collecting signatures.”
Once the petition is approved, the organizers will then have 160 days to gather about 730,000 signatures of registered voters in the county. (See related article)
Americans feel concerned about the growing partisanship in our country and the difficulty it has created in communicating with one another. Join a Community Conversation webinar on February 20, 2025, from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. titled Bridging the Gap through Respectful Conversation.
People are looking for tools to help them have civil and respectful conversations with one another. Expert panelists will offer resources, skills, and opportunities for individuals to help build bridges across divides in our families, communities, and country.
· Ellie Sears, Braver Angels organization · Dick Patterson, Braver Angels organization · Kristin Connelly, Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar · Cheryl Graeves, National Institute for Civil Discourse
Information on how to access the Zoom webinar will be sent to your email address 24 hours before the program. Audience questions will be collected and answered through the Zoom chat.
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.
The John A. Nejedly Bridge in Antioch. Photo: BATA
Last of three voter-approved increases takes effect Jan. 1st; failed in Contra Costa
BATA board also voted last week to increase tolls to $11.50 by 2030 for bridge maintenance and repairs
By John Goodwin, Assistant Director of Communications & Rebecca Long, Director, Legislation & Public Affairs, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) reminds drivers that tolls at the region’s seven state-owned toll bridges will go up by $1 next Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2025. This will be the third of the three $1 toll increases approved by the California Legislature in 2017 through state Senate Bill 595 and by voters through Regional Measure 3 (RM3) in June 2018 which passed by 55.07% to 44.93%. The first of these toll hikes went into effect on Jan. 1, 2019, and the second on Jan. 1, 2022. It funds $4.45 billion slate of highway and transit improvements but did not include bridge maintenance and repairs.
Regular tolls for two-axle cars and trucks (as well as for motorcycles) at the Antioch, San Francisco-Oakland Bay, Benicia-Martinez, Carquinez, Dumbarton, Richmond-San Rafael and San Mateo-Hayward bridges will rise to $8 from the current $7 on Jan. 1, 2025.
Tolls for vehicles with three or more axles also will rise by $1 on Jan. 1, 2025, at all seven of the state-owned toll bridges: to $18 for three axles, $23 for four-axles, $28 for five axles, $33 for six axles, and $38 for combinations with seven or more axles.
Contra Costa Voters Opposed Ballot Measure
According to Ballotpedia, RM3 raised bridge tolls in the Bay Area—excluding tolls for the Golden Gate Bridge—by $3 over six years to fund the Bay Area Traffic Relief Plan, including a $4.5 billion slate of transportation projects. It was on the ballot for voters in the city and county of San Francisco and the following counties: Contra Costa, Alameda, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma.
Voters in two of the counties most affected by the bridge tolls rejected RM3. The vote in Contra Costa County was 44.54% opposed to 55.465 in favor and Solano County voters overwhelmingly opposed it 30.03% to 69.97%. But voters in the other seven counties approved the measure. Alameda County where voters and commuters are also most affected by bridge toll increases passed RM3 by 53.89% to 46.11% The vote margin was closest in Napa County, where voters approved the measure 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent.
Source: Ballotpedia
Regional Measure 3 continues the peak-period toll discount for motorcycles, qualifying carpools and qualifying clean-air vehicles crossing any of the state-owned toll bridges on weekdays from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. The discounted toll will rise to $4 on Jan. 1 from the current $3.50. To qualify for this discount, carpoolers, motorcyclists and drivers of clean-air vehicles must use FasTrak® to pay their tolls electronically and must use a designated carpool lane at each toll plaza.
Senate Bill 595 and Regional Measure 3 also established a 50-cent toll discount for two-axle vehicles crossing more than one of the state-owned toll bridges during weekday commute hours of 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. To be eligible for the toll discount, which is to be applied to the second toll crossing of the day, motorists must pay their tolls electronically with FasTrak®. Carpools, motorcycles and qualifying clean-air vehicles making a second peak-period toll crossing in a single day will qualify for an additional 25-cent discount off the already-discounted carpool toll.
New FasTrak® customers can obtain toll tags at Costco warehouse stores and select Walgreens stores around Northern California. A complete list of participating locations — as well as an online enrollment and registration feature — is available on the FasTrak® Web site at bayareafastrak.org. Customers also may enroll in the FasTrak® program by phone at 1-877-229-8655; by calling 511 and asking for “FasTrak” at the first prompt; or in person at the FasTrak® customer service center at 375 Beale Street in San Francisco. FasTrak® can be used in all lanes at all Bay Area toll plazas.
Major projects in the Regional Measure 3 expenditure plan include improvements to State Route 37 in the North Bay, freeway interchange improvements in Alameda, Contra Costa and Solano counties, the purchase of more new BART cars, extension of the BART system from Berryessa to downtown San Jose and Santa Clara, extension of the Caltrain corridor to the Salesforce Transit Center in downtown San Francisco, expansion of Muni’s transit vehicle fleet, expansion of San Francisco Bay Ferry service and more frequent transbay bus service, an improved connection between northbound U.S. 101 and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in Marin County, upgrades to the Dumbarton Bridge corridor, and extension of the SMART rail system to Windsor and Healdsburg in Sonoma County.
In Addition to Recently Approved Toll Hikes Beginning Jan. 1, 2026
The Regional Measure 3 toll hike that takes effect next week is separate from the 50 cents per year toll hikes approved by BATA earlier this month, which will be phased in over five years, beginning Jan. 1, 2026, to pay for the maintenance, rehabilitation and operation of the seven state-owned toll bridges. It will increase tolls by 2030 to $11.50 for those who don’t use FasTrak and $10.50 for those who do. BATA this month also approved updates to the policies for high-occupancy vehicles on approaches to the state-owned bridges, which will similarly go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026. (See related article)
BATA, which is directed by the same policy board as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), administers toll revenues from the Bay Area’s seven state-owned toll bridges. Toll revenues from the Golden Gate Bridge are administered by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, which joined with BATA to operate a single regional FasTrak® customer service center in San Francisco. MTC is the transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.
Would you look at that! Prop 36, VOTED ON BY YOU, is making immediate impacts on the community!
Yesterday, Thursday, Dec. 19, 2024, Target called 9-1-1 to report a sneaky thief was inside shoplifting! The man arrived in a white Escalade and was stealing multiple items inside the store! Officer Pedreira was quick on scene with a response time of 1 minute and 5 seconds! The would-be pilferer was located placing the stolen items in the vehicle! He was detained and thanks to Prop 36 and his history of theft, his misdemeanor is now a FELONY! He was transported and booked into jail!!
Photos: Antioch PD
Last week, this habitual swindler’s five-finger-discount would have earned him a citation, today it earned him a Felony charge and a trip to jail!
We even took his car-to-car jail for its role in the crime!
Increases penalties for shoplifting and certain drug crimes
On Dec. 13, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued an Information Bulletin to all law enforcement agencies in the state about Proposition 36 which passed overwhelmingly in November and went into effect on Wednesday, Dec. 18th. The bulletin highlights the statutory changes and additions made to current law under the proposition known as “The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act.”
“Ultimately, our success in combating organized retail crime hinges on our ability to work together, innovate, and remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting our neighborhoods and businesses,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Let us harness the strength of our partnerships, the power of new legislation, and the collective resolve of our community to create a safer and more secure environment for everyone. My office is committed to fighting organized retail crime head on.”
Proposition 36 modifies existing law and adds substantive charges and enhancements to areas of the Penal Code and Health and Safety Code regarding theft, property damage, and drug-related crimes. The changes include the creation of new felony theft and drug crimes targeting recidivist offenders, removal of eligibility for the sentences of certain offenses to be served in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(h) as opposed to state prison, and alignment of the punishment for crimes involving fentanyl with that of other similar controlled substances.
Following is Bonta’s Information Bulletin:
TO: ALL CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES PROPOSITION 36: “The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act”
On November 5, 2024, California voters passed Proposition 36, known as “The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act.” Proposition 36 takes effect on December 18, 2024.
Proposition 36 modifies existing law and adds substantive charges and enhancements to areas of the Penal Code and Health and Safety Code regarding theft, property damage, and drug-related crimes. The changes include: (1) the creation of new felony theft and drug crimes targeting recidivist offenders; (2) removal of eligibility for the sentences of certain offenses to be served in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(h); and (3) alignment of the punishment for crimes involving fentanyl with that of other similar controlled substances.
The purpose of this bulletin is to highlight the statutory changes and additions made by Proposition 36.
CHANGES UNDER PROPOSITION 36 RELATING TO THEFT AND PROPERTY DAMAGE
Penal Code section 490.3 (Aggregation of Losses in Multiple Thefts): Proposition 36 creates a new Penal Code section 490.3 which permits aggregation of the value of property or merchandise stolen during multiple thefts to meet the $950 threshold for a felony without having to prove that the various crimes were motivated by one intention, one general impulse, and one plan. This new section applies to theft or shoplifting, including, but not limited to, violations of Penal Code sections 459.5, 484, 488, and 490.2.
Penal Code section 490.3 applies “notwithstanding any other law,” and is therefore broader than other laws such as Penal Code section 487, subdivision (e) and the new Penal Code section 12022.10,1
1 which would permit aggregation only in limited circumstances, such as if the acts were motivated by one intention, one general impulse, and one plan, or only if there was a common scheme or plan, respectively.
Penal Code section 666.1 (Felony Crime of Theft with Two Prior Thefts): Penal Code section 666.1 is a new, recidivist felony offense of committing petty theft or shoplifting while having two or more prior misdemeanor or felony convictions for specified theft-related crimes. A first conviction under Penal Code section 666.1, subdivision (a)(1) is punishable in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(h), second or subsequent convictions are punishable in county jail or state prison. Other notable aspects of Penal Code section 666.1 include:
There is no “washout” timeframe on the prior convictions that qualify a defendant to be charged with a violation of Penal Code section 666.1(a)(1)—all prior convictions qualify, regardless of when they occurred.
Although Penal Code section 666.1 does not mandate that the two or more specified prior convictions be alleged in the accusatory pleading, existing authority suggests that the prior convictions must be alleged and proved at preliminary hearing so a defendant can be held to answer on a Penal Code section 666.1 charge. (See People v. Casillas (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 171.)
Section 666.1 applies “notwithstanding any other law,” meaning that it will apply even if a defendant could alternatively have been prosecuted for a misdemeanor theft-related charge pursuant to another statute.
Upon arrest on a Penal Code section 666.1 charge, subdivision (c) requires judicial review prior to release from custody to make an individualized determination of the arrestee’s risk to public safety and likelihood to return to court.
Penal Code section 12022.6 (Excessive Takings Enhancement): Proposition 36 re-enacts and modifies several aspects of the Penal Code section 12022.6 enhancement, which was repealed at the end of 2017 because of a sunset date. Penal Code section 12022.6 applies when an offender takes, damages, or destroys property in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, or commits a felony in violation of Penal Code section 496 (possessing/receiving/selling stolen property). This enhancement must be pled and proved. The enhancements are as follows:
One-year enhancement – loss or property value over $50,000
Two-year enhancement – loss or property value over $200,000
Three-year enhancement – loss or property value over $1 million
Four-year enhancement – loss or property value over $3 million
One-year enhancement for every additional loss or property value of $3 million (imposed in addition to the four-year, $3 million enhancement)
The enhancements may be imposed if the combined losses to the victims or the combined property values from all felonies exceed the threshold amounts and arise from a common scheme or plan. The enhancement permits the court to impose a Penal Code section 12022.6 enhancement and another enhancement on a single count, including an enhancement pursuant to new Penal Code section 12022.65 (acting in concert to take, damage, or destroy property—see below). Thus, a defendant may be punished for both acting in concert (Pen. Code § 12022.65) and for taking or damaging property valued at more than $50,000 (Pen. Code § 12022.6). The punishment specified in Penal Code sections 12022.6, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2) will continue to apply where Penal Code section 186.11 has been charged, as it previously did.2
Penal Code section 12022.65 (Theft or Property Damage In-Concert Enhancement): Penal Code section 12022.65 is a new enhancement that applies when an offender acts in concert with two or more persons to take, attempt to take, damage, or destroy property, in the commission or attempted commission of a felony. This enhancement has a range of one, two, or three years and must be pled and proved.
CHANGES UNDER PROPOSITION 36 RELATING TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
Health and Safety Code section 11369 (Warning to Dealers of Hard Drugs): Proposition 36 creates a new section 11369 in the Health and Safety Code section 11369 which requires the trial court to advise anyone convicted of a violation of Health and Safety Section 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, 11379.5, or 11379.6 involving a hard drug,3 that distributing, selling, furnishing, administering, giving away, or manufacturing any drug is extremely dangerous and deadly to human life, and if the conduct continues, the defendant can be charged with homicide, up to and including murder.4 The admonishment must be given to the defendant in writing and the court record must reflect that the admonishment was given.
Health and Safety Code section 11370.1 (Possessing a Drug While Armed with a Firearm): Health and Safety Code section 11370.1 is modified by Proposition 36 to expand the felony crime of unlawfully possessing a specified substance while armed with a loaded, operable firearm to include any substance containing fentanyl. Health and Safety Code section 11370.1 continues to apply to substances containing cocaine, cocaine base, heroin, methamphetamine, or phencyclidine, and continues to provide punishment of two, three, or four years in state prison.
Health and Safety Code section 11370.4 (Controlled Substance Weight Enhancement): Health and Safety Code section 11370.4 is modified by Proposition 36 by adding a new subdivision (c), which provides a range of enhancements for a violation of Health and Safety Code sections 11351, 11352, or a conspiracy to violate either section, involving fentanyl.5 The following chart breaks down the nine new weight enhancements for fentanyl in specific quantities:
Source: Office of the CA Attorney General
New subdivision (e) provides that notwithstanding Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(9), a defendant convicted of an underlying violation specified in Health and Safety Code section 11370.4 (e.g., Health & Saf. Code §§ 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, and 11379.5) who admits a weight enhancement or for whom a weight enhancement is found true for any of the listed controlled substances, is punishable in state prison and not county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h).
Health and Safety Code section 11395 (“Treatment-Mandated Felony Act”): Proposition 36 creates Health and Safety Code section 11395, a new, recidivist felony offense of possessing a “hard drug” and having two or more prior felony or misdemeanor convictions for specified drug-related crimes. A violation of Health and Safety Code section 11395 is punishable in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(h) for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions are punishable in state prison. Both first and subsequent convictions are wobblers and eligible for probation unless otherwise prohibited. Other notable aspects of Health and Safety Code section 11395 include:
Section 11395 applies “notwithstanding any other law,” meaning that it will apply even if a defendant would have been eligible for a misdemeanor drug possession charge (e.g., Health & Saf. Code § 11350 or 11377), Penal Code section 1000 drug diversion, or probation for a non-violent drug possession offense pursuant to Penal Code section 1210.1.
The two or more prior convictions of specified crimes within Health and Safety Code section 11395, subdivision (c) may be either misdemeanor or a felony convictions.
There is no “washout” timeframe on the prior convictions that qualify a defendant to be charged with a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11395—all prior convictions qualify, regardless of when they occurred.
Prior convictions must be pled and proven. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (c).)
Upon booking for a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11395, subdivision (f) requires judicial review prior to release from custody to make an individual determination of the arrestee’s risk to public safety and likelihood to return to court.
Health and Safety Code section 11395 also provides an option for treatment in lieu of incarceration for its offenses. Health and Safety Code section 11395, subdivision (d) provides that a defendant may choose treatment instead of county jail, state prison, or a grant of probation with county jail as a condition of probation.6 Upon successful completion of the treatment program, the positive recommendation of the treatment program, and a motion by the defendant, the court shall dismiss the Health and Safety Code section 11395 charge. (Heath & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(3).)
Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c) (Drug Crimes While Personally Armed with a Firearm): Proposition 36 amends Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c) to provide that the enhancement for individuals convicted of specified drug offenses and who are personally armed with a firearm, must serve the additional term in state prison instead of county jail. Subdivision (c) is further amended to provide that, notwithstanding Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(9), a defendant convicted of a specified underlying violation who admits a Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c) firearm enhancement or has such an enhancement found true, is punishable in state prison even if the underlying offense is a section 1170, subdivision (h) county jail offense.
Penal Code section 12022.7 (Great Bodily Injury (GBI) Enhancement For Drug-Related Injury): Proposition 36 amends Penal Code section 12022.7 to add subdivision (f)(2), which explicitly provides that “a person who sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away a controlled substance is deemed to have personally inflicted great bodily injury when the person to whom the substance was sold, furnished, administered, or given suffers a significant or substantial physical injury from using the substance.” This creates a great bodily injury enhancement that can be charged when the person to whom an offender supplies a drug suffers a serious injury from using the drug, including death.7
1 Penal Code section 12022.10 is a new enhancement created by Senate Bill 1416, effective January 1, 2025, for selling, exchanging, or returning for value, property acquired through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or burglary from a retail business. It also applies to attempted selling, exchanging, or returning, and has a sunset date of January 1, 2030. By contrast, Penal Code section 490.3 does not address the aggregation of sales of stolen property.
2 Assembly Bill 1960, effective on January 1, 2025, adds a Penal Code section 12022.6 excessive taking enhancement that is almost identical to that in Proposition 36. The non-substantive difference is that AB 1960 contains a sunset date of January 1, 2030, and Proposition 36 does not contain a sunset date.
3 “Hard drug” means a controlled substance listed in Health and Safety Code section 11054 or 11055, except that it does not include substances listed in Health and Safety Code section 11054, subdivisions (d) and (e), or, with the exception of methamphetamine, any other substance listed in Health and Safety Code section 11055, subdivision (d). (Health & Saf. Code, § 11369, subd. (d).)
4 Vehicle Code section 23593 similarly provides that, upon conviction of certain Vehicle Code provisions, courts are required to give an advisement about the dangers of drinking and driving, and warn that if someone is killed, the offender can be charged with murder.
5 Health and Safety Code section 11370.4, subdivision (a)(1) removes fentanyl from the list of controlled substances. The modification to Health and Safety Code section 11370.4 puts fentanyl in its own subdivision (c)(1) and lowers the quantity thresholds because fentanyl is more lethal than other substances in small doses. Health and Safety Code section 11370.4, subdivision (a)(1) still applies to heroin, cocaine, and cocaine base and does not change the quantities or punishment for those substances.
6 Section 11395 is a deferred entry of judgment program, in which the defendant must plead guilty or no contest before going into treatment; it is not a diversion program.
7 This new language abrogates the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Ollo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 682, which held that furnishing a drug that causes death does not necessarily qualify as personal infliction of great bodily injury.
New Antioch School Board Trustees Dee Brown and Olga Cobos-Smith, and re-elected Trustee Antonio Hernandez will take their oaths of office Wednesday night, Dec. 18, 2024. Photos from their respective campaigns.
Will discuss extending interim superintendent’s contract, hire search firm for permanent position, consider School Plans for Student Achievement, racial equity policy
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2024, the Antioch School Board’s new Trustees Dee Smith and Olga Cobos-Smith, who were elected in November to represent Areas 3 and 4, respectively, along with re-elected Area 1 Trustee and current Board President Antonio Hernandez, who ran unopposed, will be sworn in. In addition, the board will also elect a new president, vice president and Board Member Liaison to the Contra Costa County School Boards Association.
The oaths of office will occur at 6:00 p.m. prior to the board’s Closed Session in which they will discuss the extending Interim Superintendent Dr. Rob Martinez’s contract for six months and a Tentative Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with the California Schools Employee Association #85 – both of which will be voted on later during Open Session, plus legal matters, a Public Employee: Discipline/Dismissal/Release and re-entry of a student who was expelled.
New Trustees Thank Voters
In comments on Facebook, the newly elected board members announced their victories. On Nov. 25th, Brown shared a graphic with the message, “Thank you for your votes and faith in me to lead a positive change in our Antioch schools.”
She also wrote, “I am thankful to my family, campaign manager, media person, volunteers, sponsors, voters of AUSD Area 3, and everyone who encouraged me and prayed for me.
I am also thankful to my opponent, Principal Scott Bergerhouse, for his congratulatory message when he conceded his race. He has many years of education and has been there for countless families, something that I will never deem, but instead, I congratulate him for his many years of service, and the students he impacted.
Since the beginning of this process, I have told myself that slowing down and quitting is not an option. Although I knew I was not only experienced with having a seat at the table, I also deserved to be there.
For those who know me and know what I stand for and those who said she is just ‘A Mom who must have found her voice,’ I’ve always had a voice, and my voice is even louder as the mother of a beautiful daughter who is currently in TK, who will continue to excel, and reach for however many stars as she pleases.
I’m ready to work with ALL students, dedicated teachers, classified workers, school administrators, parents, and most importantly, our current Trustee Board Members.
There is a saying that says, “It takes a village.” I am honored to be part of a village that can help meet our children’s needs.
I will share more later, but for now, THANK YOU! Now, the real work begins.
~ Trustee Elect Dee Brown”
On Nov. 8 Cobos-Smith shared a screenshot of the election result and wrote simply, “Thank you Area 4 voters!!! One more tally on the 13th, but I think it’s safe to say that I will be the new trustee for area 4 on the Antioch school board.”
She already took action during last Tuesday’s city council meeting at which she spoke during public comments on the Council Committee Assignments objecting to District 3 Councilman Don Freitas being appointed to the City-School Committee instead of District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker. Cobos-Smith cited the violence in that council district which is affecting students in the school district. Freitas then asked to be removed from consideration and to appoint his council colleague. That was agreed to as part of the motion to approve all the appointments which was approved on a 5-0 vote by the council.
Asked why she requeste that, the newly-elected trustee said, “I had a member of the community inform me that there was a young student who was attending a school, here in Antioch, and was related to one of the young men who was killed. When that parent reached out to the principal of that school and asked if there wer any resources to help that student, nothing happened. That really concerned me. There’s been a lot of sensationalism about the violence in the Sycamore area. But there are real children who are living in these homes.”
Asked if more AUSD students living in City Council District 1 experienced more violence than other parts of the city, Cobos-Smith replied, “No. In particular, it’s the gun violence that’s been happening. All the kids have been talking about it. I have some specific goals for the school district that I want to work on.”
Interim Superintendent & Search Firm Selection
Under Action Item 11.J., the board will vote on extending the current contract for Interim Superintendent Dr. Robert Martinez through June 2025. The proposed contract for Martinez includes a base annual salary of $353,045.
Following a solicitation of proposals and receiving four, under item 12.A. the trustees will also vote to select a search firm for hiring a permanent district superintendent and/or for consultation services to assist the Board of Trustees with goal development.
School Plans for Student Achievement
In addition, under Action Item 11.G., according to district staff, the board will vote on School Plans for Student Achievement (SPSA) for sites in receipt of federal categorical funding as presented.
As per District Board Policy 0420, each district school shall establish a school site council to develop, approve, and annually review and update a School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) for schools that participate in state and federal categorical programs. The Board shall, at a regularly scheduled Board meeting, review and approve each school’s SPSA.
Each of the following schools participates in a federal categorical program(s) and is designated as a school-wide program (SWP). SWP schools are not required to identify specific students as eligible to participate in programming, nor are they required to ensure that Title I services are supplementary. This flexibility allows schools to maximize the impact of federal investment in support of all students that align with school and district goals outlined in the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP).
Title I-designated schools received a portion of unused funds from the previous fiscal year. This extra allocation of funds is included in the updated SPSA, which received original Board approval in June 2024. All plans for the following schools were approved by their elected School Site Councils. District staff reviewed the plans to ensure that funding is used appropriately to support student achievement as required by the California Education Code. SPSAs are included for all District schools.
Racial Equity Policy
Under Item 17.A. the trustee will consider adopting new Board Policy 0415.1 Racial Equity.
According to the staff report, “The Governing Board of the Antioch Unified School District believes that meeting the needs of all students requires a commitment to racial equity in both the learning environment and opportunities provided, focusing on equitable outcomes for all. The historical and persistent opportunity gaps between racial and ethnic groups in AUSD are unacceptable and have significant consequences, representing an unfulfilled promise to our students.
Acknowledging the complex historical and societal factors that contribute to these disparities, the Board affirms it is a moral imperative to overcome these inequities so that race is no longer a predictor of achievement, school experience, or success. To address and eliminate institutional racism, barriers to achievement, and implicit biases, the District will actively identify and work to remedy practices, policies, and institutional systems that negatively impact learning, perpetuate opportunity gaps, and limit equal access for all students.”
The Board meetings are held in the District Office Board Room at 510 G Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown with the Closed Session beginning at 6:00 p.m. and the Open Session at 7:00 p.m. The meeting can be viewed live on the AUSD YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@AntiochUnifiedSchoolDistrict.
See the complete board meeting agenda at https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/ausd/Board.nsf/Public.
Releases 2024 Post-Election Analysis Report detailing successful efforts taken to deliver nation’s election mail securely, effectively
On average, ballots were delivered from voters to election officials within one day
CALIFORNIA — Today, the United States Postal Service released its 2024 Post-Election Analysis Report, outlining the agency’s steps to process more than 99.22 million ballots in the 2024 general election. The full report can be read here: 2024 Post-Election Analysis Report.
“In 2024, the Postal Service once again admirably performed our role of efficiently and effectively delivering the nation’s ballots,” said Postmaster General Louis DeJoy. “As we continue to transform the nation’s postal network to better meet the demands of the modern mailing and shipping customer, we stand ready to work with policymakers at all levels to make the nation’s effective vote by mail process even stronger.”
The Postal Service’s success in 2024 was the result of a deepened focus on operational precision and integrated communications, the engagement of the USPS Election and Government Mail Services team and execution of longstanding, proven operational processes and procedures, including extraordinary measures.
As in previous general elections, the Postal Service deployed extraordinary measures in the final weeks of the election season to swiftly move Ballot Mail entered close to or on Election Day and/or the state’s return deadline. Extraordinary measures began on Monday, Oct. 21, continued nationwide through Election Day on Tuesday, Nov. 5, and extended through the last day in each state that boards of elections accepted completed mail-in ballots as timely.
In 2024, the Postal Service’s extraordinary measures included but were not limited to: extra deliveries and collections; special pick-ups; specialized sort plans at processing facilities to expedite delivery to boards of elections; and local handling and transportation of ballots.
Key 2024 Election Mail Performance Statistics
As part of the nation’s critical infrastructure, USPS is responsible for processing, transporting, and delivering the nation’s Election Mail safely, securely, and on time. During the General Election, USPS processed more than 99 million ballots. On average, Ballot Mail sent from voters to election officials were delivered within one day.
99.22 Million Ballots Processed in the 2024 General Election: During the general election period of September 1 – November 15, the Postal Service delivered at least 99.22 million ballots to or from voters.*
99.88 Percent of Ballots Delivered to Election Officials Within a Week: The agency successfully processed, transported and delivered 99.88 percent of ballots from voters to election officials within seven days, and 99.64 percent within five days.**
97.73 Percent of Ballots Delivered from Voters to Election Officials Within Three Days: The Postal Service successfully returned 97.73 percent of ballots from voters to local election officials in fewer than three days.
1 Day Average Delivery Time for Ballots from Voters to Election Officials: On average, the Postal Service delivered ballots from voters to election officials within one day.
3.37 Billion Pieces of Political and Election Mail Delivered in 2024: The total mail volume surpassed 3 billion mailpieces for both Political and Election Mail tracked.
As an essential part of the nation’s disaster response network, readiness and preparation for natural disasters are standard procedure for the Postal Service. In September and October 2024, Hurricanes Helene and Milton devastated portions of Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina just weeks before the election. However, through the deployment of extraordinary measures in the weeks before Election Day, voters in the impacted areas who chose to use the mail to vote received performance comparable with the rest of the nation.
Recommendations To Improve the Nation’s Vote by Mail System in Future Election Cycles
The Postal Service is both a national service and a world-class logistics organization. As such, consistent policies are needed nationwide to ensure that operations run smoothly, that the 640,000 USPS employees understand what is expected of them, and the millions of customers can have trust in the Postal Service’s ability to deliver for them. At the same time, when it comes to the delivery of Election Mail, there are 50 states and nearly 8,000 election jurisdictions that are far from uniform in their election laws and practices, and that often do not consider how the mail system works.
This can result in a mismatch of timeframes, deadlines, ballot return suggestions and the practical reality of using the mail. Many of these laws and practices were not established with the Postal Service’s operations in mind.
As USPS continues to transform the nation’s postal network to better meet the demands of the modern mailing and shipping customer, the organization stands ready to work with policymakers at all levels to continue educating them on how the mail works. While the Postal Service provides effective, efficient, and reliable service for all mail, including Election Mail, there are long-standing recommendations that policymakers should consider to help expedite the transport of mail-in ballots to and from voters including:
Following and implementing USPS recommendations on mail piece preparation
Applying visibility tools to Election and Ballot Mail
Better understanding of Postal Operations
Continuing voter education initiatives on state laws and reasonable mailing deadlines
*Total volume reflects volume that was identifiable as Ballot Mail by the Postal Service.
**Performance data for outbound Ballot Mail (sent from local boards of elections to voters) includes only those ballots that were properly identified as ballots and consistent with our service performance measurement rules.
Performance data for inbound Ballot Mail (sent from voters to local boards of elections) includes both those ballots that were properly identified as ballots and consistent with our service performance measurement rules as well as the volume identified by a survey for which data is available from 10/21/2024 to 11/13/2024.
Please Note: The United States Postal Service is an independent federal establishment, mandated to be self-financing and to serve every American community through the affordable, reliable and secure delivery of mail and packages to nearly 169 million addresses six and often seven days a week. Overseen by a bipartisan Board of Governors, the Postal Service is implementing a 10-year transformation plan, Delivering for America, to modernize the postal network, restore long-term financial sustainability, dramatically improve service across all mail and shipping categories, and maintain the organization as one of America’s most valued and trusted brands.
The Postal Service generally receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations.
