Incumbent Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and challengers Ron Bernal and Rakesh Christian are battling for the top leadership position in the City of Antioch.
With almost $156K for the former city manager, a little over $139K for the incumbent and $8,500 for the other challenger
By Allen D. Payton
There are several battles in a political campaign war: ground – door-to-door precinct walking, air – including direct mail and TV, endorsements, signs, advertising and fundraising. The most recent campaign finance reports in the race for Mayor of Antioch show former city manager Ron Bernal has slightly increased his lead over Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe, while the other challenger, Rakesh Christian, is trailing in a distant third in the battle for the bucks.
Known as a Form 460, the report shows for the period of July 1 through Sept. 21 plus, a Form 497 report showing $1,000 contributed since then, the challenger had raised another $28,322 for a total of $155,967.34 for the year. The incumbent raised $22,375 for the period and an additional $3,000 since then for a total of $81,169. However, that amount does not include the $58,171.60 left over from his Stop the #Karen Recall committee that Hernandez-Thorpe transferred to his re-election committee. That has given the mayor a total of $139,340.60 to spend during the campaign.
The Form 460 report for the third candidate in the race, challenger and second-time candidate for mayor, Rakesh Christian, shows he’s loaned his committee $8,543.17 and spent it all during the period.
Bernal
The 460 report for the period shows Bernal’s largest contributions were $5,500 each from Dave and Thea Shupe, of Oakley, owners of Drill Tech Drilling & Shoring, Inc. in Antioch, $3,500 from rancher and farer Robert McGrew of Dixon, $2,000 from Michael Hurd of Antioch, self-employed in commercial real estate consulting and the former track and field coach at Antioch High School for whom the track is named, $1,000 from Antioch State Farm Insurance Agent James Lanter, $500 each from Pruthviraj Desai of Antioch, owner and manager of Antioch Executive Inn, the location of the City’s homeless hotel, Duane Shoemake of Antioch, listed as retired, Joe Stokley of Pleasant Hill, Broker of Stokley Properties, and $250 from Lori Ogorchock’s 2022 city council campaign committee and an additional $150 from the councilwoman.
His Form 497 filed on Sept. 29th shows two $500 contributions from Steven Abfalter of Antioch, listed as retired.
Bernal’s campaign committee spent almost all of the $47,228.72 during the period outside of Antioch and East County. The largest expenditures included $27,461.65 to Praetorian Public Relations of Walnut Creek for campaign consulting, $11,500 to J Wallin Opinion Research of Newport Beach for polling, $3,000 to Corey Agopian for social media content creation, $1,449 to the City of Antioch for candidate filing, $1,281 to the California Homeowners Voter Guide for a slate mailer and $981 to No Party Preference Voter Guide in Sacramento for another slate mailer.
Of the funds paid to Praetorian they in turn paid $8,756.36 to Imprint of Houston, TX for campaign paraphernalia, $3,705.43 to Landslide Communications in Laguna Niguel for literature, $3,006.80 to Prompt.io of Seattle, WA for phone banking, $2,298.76 to SignsOnTheCheap.com in Austin, TX and $774 to the COPS Voter Guide in Sacramento for a slate mailer.
Bernal’s committee began the period with a Beginning Cash Balance of $87,797.97, and as of Sept. 21st, had spent a total of $87,076.09 leaving him an Ending Cash Balance of $68,241.10 for the remainder of the campaign. See Bernal Form 460 0701-092124, Form 497 092924
Hernandez-Thorpe
The mayor’s largest contributions for the period were $5,000 each from Prestige One Investment, LLC of Brentwood, a company owned by businessman and Antioch commercial real estate owner Sean McCauley and Gary’s Liquor and Cigarettes for Less of Antioch, $1,000 each from Doralee Montague of Lawrenceville, Georgia listed as Director, Cox Communications, Robert Collins of Antioch listed as retired, Teresa Moye of Atlanta, GA, Partner of Moye Properties, $500 each from DASS Sweets, Inc. of Antioch, form Contra Costa College Board Trustee Gregory Enholm of Bay Point listed as retired, Mary Simms of Antioch, owner of Simms Enterprises, Victor Baker of Pleasant Hill, CEO of EquitiFy, Pruthviraj Desai of Antioch, listed as a hotelier, owner of the Executive Inn on E. 18th Street and Taylor Drivon of Stockton, listed as a homemaker,
Plus, an additional $3,000 was received on Oct. 3 from Maria Quinto Collins of Antioch, the mother of the late Angelo Quinto for whom the City’s Crisis Response Team is named and listed as the Founder for the Angelo Quinto Foundation. Her husband is Robert Collins listed above. Thorpe voted to settle their family’s lawsuit against the City and police department for $7.5 million.
Unlike Bernal’s campaign, the Hernandez-Thorpe re-election campaign spent a large amount of his $66,481.49 in expenditures locally in Antioch and East County. The largest expenditures for the period include $19,244.59 paid to Belleci Signs of Pittsburg for literature and lawn signs, $11,393 for five slate mailers paid to a company in Torrance, $10,627.64 to Copyworld of Berkeley for literature, $2,898 to the City of Antioch for candidate filing fees, $2,689.63 to La Plazuela in Antioch for a fundraiser, $2,500 to Chef Clarinne LeGrone of Antioch for catering and event space for the Mayor’s Democratic Unity Rally, $2,155 to LowKii Photography of Antioch, $792 to FastSigns of Antioch for 4’x8’ signs, $750 to Vicki Robinson of Antioch the campaign’s treasurer, $729.34 to Facebook for online advertising, $566.30 to Cheapestees of Burlingame and $549.60 to Political Data, Inc. of Norwalk for literature.
The mayor’s campaign committee started the period with a Beginning Cash Balance of $99,204.31 and as of Sept. 21st had spent $81,742.78 and had an Ending Cash Balance of $54,597.82. Add the $3,000 from Mrs. Quinto Collins and Hernandez-Thorpe had $58,597.82 to spend for the remainder of the campaign.
Of the funds Christian loaned to and were spent by his campaign, the largest expenditures were $4,713.58 to Sign-A-Rama of Antioch, $1,954.59 to the City of Antioch for the candidate filing fee and $1,500 to Kingdom Graphix of Antioch for website design. He had no Ending Cash Balance. See Christian Form 460 0701-092124
According to the California Secretary of State, the next reporting period ends on Oct. 19th and the candidates’ campaign committees must submit another Form 460 by Oct. 24th.
KTVU interview with Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe interview on Wednesday, Oct. 9, 2024. Video screenshot
In Wednesday TV news interview about new Violence Reduction Initiative; Bernal says, “No” he didn’t know about police scandals
Although scandals occurred while he’s been on the council since 2016 and mayor since 2020 Hernandez-Thorpe won’t accept any responsibility
By Allen D. Payton
Antioch Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe who is seeking re-election to a second term in the position, and third term on the council, lashed out at his opponent, former city manager Ron Bernal on Wednesday, Oct. 9, 2024, during a Bay Area TV news interview. He posted a video of the interview on his official Facebook page.
The KTVU interview was about the Violence Reduction Initiative approved the by city council the previous night providing up to $500,000 for help from outside agencies at a cost of up to $200 per hour for their officers and equipment. The plan is to supplement the effort of the Antioch Police Department specifically focusing on the City’s highest-crime areas of Sycamore and Cavallo Roads following a rash of 15 shootings in September, most of which occurred in those parts of town and results in the deaths of two young men.
During the interview the mayor blasted Bernal claiming he was responsible for the current crime which he blamed on the lack of officers due to the two scandals involving officers from both the Antioch and Pittsburg Police Departments that were investigated by both the Contra Costa DA’s Office and FBI. Hernandez-Thorpe said, “The former city manager left us with this mess.”
The scandals started with the selling of steroids and one officer taking tests so other officers could pass college courses to obtain greater pay and the initial investigation uncovered racist and offensive texts being sent by six officers but received by many more. The investigations resulted in 35 Antioch officers being placed on leave and ultimately, 10 officers being terminated. (See related articles here, here and here)
The texting occurred in 2019, 2020 and 2021 while Hernandez-Thorpe was on the city council having been elected in 2016 and during his first year as mayor, and when Bernal was city manager, having been first hired interim city manager then promoted to the permanent position both in March 2017. The mayor called for the firing of all the officers investigated for the text scandal in May 2023 and again the following month.
The KTVU reporter challenged the mayor asking him if he was elected in 2020, but she failed to ask him how long he’s served on the council. Hernandez-Thorpe’s first term as a council member began in December 2016 and included the time period of both police scandals.
The police chief at that time, Tammany Brooks, who was hired in May 2017, said he was unaware of the texts that were shared among officers’ personal cell phones, not their department-issued phones. In October 2021, Brooks retired from Antioch and took a new position with the Boise Police Department. Bernal retired at the end of December 2021.
It wasn’t always chilly between the mayor and Bernal. Following Bernal’s announcement of his retirement, Hernandez-Thorpe heaped praise upon him saying, “Ron is an impeccable human being, filled with compassion, understanding, and love. This has been demonstrated time after time in his relentless support and desire to house our unhoused neighbors, provide Antioch youth with new paths filled with opportunity, and much, much more. Ron has been a friend, confidant, and advisor. While Ron will be missed in his capacity as city manager, he and his wife will continue to be Antioch residents and neighbors to many of us.” (See related articles here and here)
This is the second time Hernandez-Thorpe has accused Bernal of something that occurred while both were serving in their respective positions. Earlier this year the mayor accused the former city manager of approving the decommissioning of the Antioch Amtrak station, which was later proven false. Bernal, with Hernandez-Thorpe’s knowledge, only approved the demolition of the building at the station. (See related article)
Questions for Hernandez-Thorpe Go Unanswered
Questions were sent Thursday morning to the mayor asking the following:
“If you’re going to blame the former city manager, who was hired in March 2017, shouldn’t you also accept at least part of the blame since you were one of his bosses and were on the council at the time?
Did you know about the texts being sent among the officers?
Since Chief Brooks was hired in May 2017 in your first year on the council and who said he was unaware of the texts as they were sent using the officers’ personal cell phones and that’s not something the department has oversight of, how could you expect the city manager to know of the texts? How could you or any of the council members be aware of them, either?
Since you twice called for the firing of all 35 officers on paid leave during the two investigations, most of whom only received the texts but didn’t send any, which if that had happened would have further depleted the number on the Antioch force by another 25 sworn officers, shouldn’t you take responsibility for contributing to the atmosphere that’s kept officers from wanting to come to work for our city?
As the mayor and one of five council members, do you accept any responsibility for the current crime problems, specifically the recent rash of 16 shootings in Antioch and lack of police officers on the force?
Do you think it’s appropriate to be campaigning during a TV interview about a new City effort to address the current increase in shootings in Antioch’s highest crime areas instead of focusing on the solutions?”
The mayor was also asked to share anything else about the matter.
But multiple attempts to reach Hernandez-Thorpe and his campaign consultant were unsuccessful prior to publication time.
Bernal Says He Didn’t Know About the Police Scandals
In addition, Bernal was also asked questions about Hernandez-Thorpe’s accusations. He was asked:
“Did you know anything about the racist and offensive police texts while you were city manager?
Did you know anything about the use of steroids by some officers?
Were you aware of any reports from within the department that some officers were paying another officer to take tests for them to pass college courses in order to increase their pay?”
Bernal was also asked if he had any other comments about the matter.
Although his campaign consultant, Matt Shupe, responded, “Were not going to engage on any of these Lamar issues/topics/stories” and shared Bernal had also been interviewed by KTVU on Thursday, the candidate later responded simply with, “No, no and no. I have no further comment.”
The election is November 5th and whichever of the three running for mayor, including second-time candidate Rakesh Christian, is victorious will serve for a four-year term.
Please check back later for any updates to this report.
Over $65,000 for research, polling, website and mailer saying Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe is “Unfit for Leadership”
By Allen D. Payton
A direct-mail hit piece arrived in Antioch residents’ mailboxes on Tuesday, October 8, 2024, against Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe saying he’s “Unfit for Leadership” and “Not Right for Antioch”. It was paid for by the California Real Estate Independent Expenditure Committee – California Association of REALTORS with the National Association of REALTORS® and California Association of REALTORS® as the “Committee’s Top Funders”.
According to the campaign finance report known as a Form 496, available through the Antioch City Clerk’s website, as of Oct. 8, 2024, the opposition campaign had spent $65,328.50 to defeat the incumbent, of which $40,000.00 paid for the mailer and a website, $17,312.50 for polling and $8,016.00 for research. (See CA Realtors Form 496)
Before independent expenditure committees spend money to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure, they will pay for research and then a conduct a poll or survey of likely voters to determine the level of support or opposition, and what issues they should highlight in a campaign to achieve their goals.
Front of the mailer against Antioch Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe paid for by the two Realtors associations that arrived in the mail on Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2024. Photo provided by a reader.
The mailer highlights the mayor’s $350,000 sexual harassment claims settlement by the County in September 2022 and shows newspaper headlines and quotes from articles and editorials of his “intolerable misogynistic behavior” and include comments that, “He must resign” and “For the sake of the city, Thorpe should step aside.”
The mailer provides a website address of www.unfitforleadership.com which offers more details about Hernandez-Thorpe’s controversial behavior during his term as mayor with sub-headers of Sexual Harassment, Illegal Meetings, Selling His Office and Drunk Driving. The website shares information about the mayor’s political affairs consulting business, El Sereno Strategic Group, which, according to Bizpedia he formed on January 24, 2022. The company’s website includes a photo of Hernandez-Thorpe sitting in the Mayor’s Office at Antioch City Hall signing a City of Antioch certificate for someone and other photos from his official duties, including from some of his many press conferences.
Source: UnfitForLeadership.com opposition campaign website screenshot.
One premise of the opposition campaign website is that the mayor is “Trading On His Political Relationships… ‘cultivated’ while an elected official in Antioch should be used to benefit the Citizens of Antioch, not reserved for paying clients.”
Questions for Hernandez-Thorpe Go Unanswered
Hernandez-Thorpe was asked if he’d seen the mailer and website and had any comments about them. He was also asked about his business website and why he’s using photos from his official duties, specifically from inside the Mayor’s Office at City Hall to promote his company. Hernandez-Thorpe was also asked if he thinks it’s appropriate and doesn’t it create the appearance that the mayor is mixing his elected duties with his business activities. Most importantly, the mayor was asked if he does any business with any client who has had dealings with the City of Antioch and/or has been before the city council for a vote.
Multiple efforts to reach the mayor and his campaign consultant were unsuccessful prior to publication time on Wednesday, October 9, 2024. Please check back later for any updates to this report.
Propositions 2 through 6 were placed on the ballot by the Legislature and given special numbering.
Propositions 32-36 are citizens’ initiatives that were given sequential numbering from prior elections, as usual.
Statewide Propositions
No on 2
Why we’re against it
Proposition 2 is $10 billion of bonds, new state debt, to pay for school facilities. It is almost certain to result in higher property tax bills, because school districts must provide a “local match” of funds in order to receive money from the Prop. 2 state bonds. That will lead to districts issuing new local school bonds, which are paid for by adding new charges to property tax bills. Enrollment is declining in both K-12 district schools and community colleges and the declines are projected to continue. But Proposition 2 commits California to pay an estimated $18 billion, including interest, for school buildings that may not even be necessary. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 2.
Proposition 3 – HJTA takes no position on this measure
Proposition 3 removes language from the state Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and woman. It adds the language, “right to marry is a fundamental right.” This measure has no effect on the current law, because the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution protects the right to marry.
No on 4
Why we’re against it
This is the $10 billion “climate bond” that state politicians have long planned. California already has too much bond debt, over $78 billion outstanding as of January 1. Then $6.38 billion was added with Proposition 1 in March. Proposition 4 would add another $10 billion in bond debt to pay for climate “programs.” It’s reckless to use borrowed money, an estimated $18 billion with interest, to pay for “programs,” including salaries for all the groups that receive the money. Bond financing only makes sense for necessary projects that will last more than the 30 years it takes to repay the debt. The governor has already declared a budget emergency because the state spends more than it takes in. Spending even more “on the credit card” is a bad idea. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 4.
No on 5
Why we’re against it
Proposition 5 is ACA 1, a direct attack on Proposition 13. It makes it easier to raise taxes by eliminating the longstanding two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local bonds (borrowed money that must be repaid with interest). All new bond measures for “infrastructure” (nearly everything is “infrastructure”) and for public housing projects would pass with just 55% approval instead of the current 66.7%. Local bonds are paid for with extra charges on property tax bills, adding to the tax burden on homeowners and businesses, leading to higher rents for tenants and higher consumer prices for everyone. If Proposition 5 is not stopped, property tax bills are likely to go up after every election, forever. Proposition 5 will raise the cost of living in California, which already has the highest poverty rate in the country when the cost of living is taken into account. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 5.
No on 6
Why we’re against it
Proposition 6 bans mandatory work requirements for state prison inmates. It doesn’t seem fair to further increase the burden on taxpayers by creating the conditions to negotiate higher wages for inmates who are paying off their debt to society by serving their sentences in state prison. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 6.
No on 32
Why we’re against it
Proposition 32 would raise California’s hourly minimum wage from $16 to $18 and then adjust it annually for inflation. Unfortunately, raising the hourly minimum wage has sometimes reduced weekly wages as businesses cut hours and lay off workers. The best way to raise incomes in California is to stop driving job-creating businesses out of the state or into the ground. Raising the minimum wage is counter-productive. It also increases the state’s expenses by raising government labor costs. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 32.
No on 33
Why we’re against it
Proposition 33 is a rent control measure that would lead to a reduction in the supply of rental housing. It repeals a sensible 1995 law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which put limits on rent control laws to ensure that housing providers could make a fair return on their investment and stay in business. Repealing Costa-Hawkins would mean cities could enact radical rent control, even on single-family homes and condos, and prevent property owners from resetting the rent to the market rate after a tenant voluntarily moves out. Proposition 33 would lead to a sharp reduction in new apartment construction as lenders evaluate financial risk due to potential rent control laws. That will worsen the housing shortage in California. Voters have already rejected this proposal twice before, in 2018 and 2020. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 33.
Yes on 34
Why we’re for it
Some nonprofit healthcare organizations that receive federal funds to provide health care services have abused the system to spend large amounts of money on political causes. Proposition 34 would end this practice and require that healthcare providers spend most of the money they receive from a federal prescription drug discount program on direct patient care. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 34.
Proposition 35 – HJTA takes no position on this measure
California currently taxes managed care organizations (MCOs) such as Anthem Blue Cross and others. The MCO tax is set to expire in 2026, and we expect the Legislature to make it permanent. Proposition 35 would also make it permanent but would require the revenue from the tax to fund Medi-Cal, the government health insurance program for low-income residents, instead of being used to close gaps in the state budget. About 14 million California residents rely on the Medi-Cal program for their health care needs.
Yes on 36
Why we’re for it
Proposition 36 is the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act,” backed by law enforcement groups and retailers. It makes thoughtful changes to Proposition 47 (2014), which reduced some theft and drug felonies to misdemeanors. Proposition 36 would get tougher on third offenses and also offer drug and mental health treatment as an alternative to incarceration. It would allow judges to sentence some individuals to state prison instead of county jail. The surge of retail theft, vehicle break-ins and open drug use on California’s streets has increased the burden on first responders, and on taxpayers, as well as raising insurance costs throughout the state. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 36.
About HJTA
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights, including the right to limited taxation, the right to vote on tax increases and the right of economical, equitable and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. For over 35 years, HJTA has been the legal and political watchdog for Proposition 13 and a staunch defender of California taxpayers. For more information and to join visit http://www.hjta.org.
Source: Bergerhouse for Antioch School Board campaign
For open Trustee Area 3 seat on campaign of “Putting Students First”
By Allen D. Payton
The campaign for retired Antioch Unified School District administrator, former Dozier-Libbey Medical High School principal and English teacher, Scott Bergerhouse, shared the following information about the first-time candidate for public office running on the theme of “Putting Students First.”
“Hello, I’m Scott Bergerhouse, and I’m running for the Antioch School Board in Area 3. Now more than ever, it’s crucial to be engaged in school board elections, even if you don’t have children in the district. Our schools, once safe havens for learning, are facing unprecedented challenges. What we hear about education issues on the national stage is happening right here at home.
I believe in an education system that nurtures intellectual growth and fosters critical thinking. Our children deserve to be taught how to think, not what to think. It’s essential that our schools remain free from any political agendas, focusing solely on empowering students to become independent thinkers.
As a former School District Administrator, I am committed to prioritizing student wellness. I will advocate for programs that support not only academic success but also the overall well-being of our students. This includes enhancing mental health resources and expanding extracurricular opportunities.
My roots in Antioch run deep. My family moved here in 1965, and I am a proud graduate of the Antioch Unified School District. I have dedicated 40 years to educational leadership, with 39 of those years serving the Antioch community. I’ve been a teacher, a school administrator, and most recently, a district administrator. I have worked with thousands of students and families and remain deeply committed to this community.
If elected, I will focus on increasing student attendance and providing social and emotional support for students, families, and staff. Attendance is directly linked to learning outcomes, and we must ensure our students are in school and engaged. I will also work to enhance safety for both students and staff, and I am committed to fostering collaboration between the Antioch School Board and the City Council for the benefit of our entire community.
I humbly ask for your support. Together, we can address the challenges facing our schools and build a future where every student can succeed.”
Then-Dozier-Libbey Principal Scott Bergerhouse speaks to the 2015 graduating class. Herald file photo
Education Career Background, Honor, Leadership Experience
As previously reported, Bergerhouse began his career in the Antioch Unified School District as an English teacher in 1984 at what was then Park Junior High School. He then worked as an administrator at Antioch High School, Antioch Middle School, Park Middle School, Deer Valley High School and then, Carmen Dragon Elementary. In 2010, he was named High School Principal of the year by the Association of California School Administrators. For seven years, Bergerhouse was selected by administrators in the district to serve as president of the Antioch Management Association.
Bergerhouse has also been active in the community having served as president of the Delta Advocacy Foundation.
Campaign Finances
The first-time candidate began his campaign on August 21st when he filed his Form 410. His campaign finance disclosure report, Form 460, for the period of July 1 through Sept. 21, 2024, shows he had raised $1,500 in contributions and spent $811.78. Bergerhouse received three contributions of $500 each from himself, Earlene Lanter and Tim Hurd, both of Antioch. However, the candidate said it was actually former Antioch High track coach Mike Hurd who made the contribution. So, the campaign will have to submit an amended report reflecting that correction. His largest and only expenditure of more than $100 was for $665.35 paid to Custom Printed Signs located in Austin, TX. (See Bergerhouse Form 460)
Personal Life
Bergerhouse has two adult children. His older brother Steve is a retired Antioch Police Investigator.
He faces one opponent, Educational Program Director Dee Brown, in the race for the open school board seat being vacated by Trustee Dr. Clyde Lewis who chose to not run for re-election. The election is November 5th.
Following is the list of candidate forums hosted by the League of Women Voters Diablo Valley for the Nov. 5, 2024, elections.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, District 5 –Tuesday, Sept. 10, 4:30-5:30 pm, IBEW Union Hall, Martinez. District 5 includes portions of Antioch and Antioch District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica is facing off against Pittsburg Councilwoman Shanell Scales Preston.
State Senate District 9 – Sunday, Sept. 15, 2:00-3:00 pm, Danville Women’s Club, Alamo. Senate District 9 includes all of Antioch and Assemblyman Tim Grayson is facing off against San Ramon City Councilwoman Marisol Rubio.
By Gayle Murray, League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley
Confused about the ballot propositions? Want to learn quickly about them in depth and through a non-partisan lens? Join a Community Conversations webinar on Thursday, September 26 at 4 p.m.
Janet Hoy and Sue Brandy of the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley will give the Pros And Cons positions of the propositions on your ballot based on the League’s research. The moderators will present information about major funding sources supporting the propositions and answer your questions about both the initiatives and the legislative measures on the upcoming California ballot.
The Contra Costa County Library will provide closed captioning and simultaneous Spanish interpretation for this event. The program will be recorded and uploaded to the Library’s YouTube channel after the event.
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 Q&A tab.
Community Conversations are sponsored by 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.
Antioch City Clerk Ellie Householder (left) approved the use by District 2 Council candidate Dominique King (center) of the title “Educator” in her ballot designation but her opponent, former Antioch High Principal Louie Rocha couldn’t. Herald file photos.
Dominique King, who isn’t a teacher allowed to use term, but retired Antioch High principal Louie Rocha can’t
Antioch City Clerk Ellie Householder says, “Educator does not mean teacher,” in spite of the dictionary definition to the contrary. Uses her own.
By Allen D. Payton
According to the definition found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary online, the word “educator” means “one skilled in teaching : teacher”, “a student of the theory and practice of education” or “an administrator in education.” Yet, the term was allowed as one of the three titles in the ballot designation for one candidate for Antioch City Council in District 3 who isn’t a teacher and doesn’t have a four-year college degree or a teacher’s credential. But it wasn’t allowed for a retired principal who spent most of his career in education and continues to fill in as a substitute principal, including for a week, later this month.
But City Clerk Ellie Householder approved the use of the term by Dominique King, in her first run for city council against retired Antioch High School principal, Louie Rocha, who is also running for city council for the first time. The City Clerk said, “Educator does not mean teacher,” and later explained her reasoning. King claims she educates people through her and her husband’s business, which is how she also uses the title “Businesswoman”.
10-Day Public Review Period of Candidate Ballot Designations
Candidates and anyone can challenge another candidate’s ballot designations during a 10-day public review period following the close of filing. But it takes legal action and a judge’s decision in court to force a change. No challenge to King’s designation was made by Rocha or anyone else.
As previously reported, about the three titles she used in her ballot designation of “Businesswoman / Educator / Consultant” King said, “My ballot designation was reviewed and approved. I trust that if I had not met the necessary requirements during the local and county election review process, my designation would have been rejected.” But she refused to say where she teaches or how she can use the title of “Educator”.
Rocha Told He Can’t Use “Educator” in Ballot Designation Because He’s Retired andPrimary Source of Income is His Pension
Candidates can offer three options for their ballot designations. Rocha offered all three, but the first one, “Retired Antioch High School Principal” was more than three words. So, the County Elections Division staff rejected it and called him about it. He also offered “Retired Principal/Educator” but that was rejected by the City Clerk’s Office because he’s retired, even though Rocha says he continues to fill in at schools periodically, as a substitute principal, referred to as an “itinerant”.They settled on Rocha’s third choice of simply, “Retired Principal.”
“After I retired, what’s pretty common, is if we will be available to serve as substitute principals,” he explained. “I’ve worked the last two years as a substitute principal at all levels including at Bidwell High School for a week, later this month.”
Rocha shared with the Herald a copy of the email sent to him by Householder about his ballot designation explaining why he couldn’t use the term “Educator.”
On Aug 1, 2024, at 3:57 PM, Ellie Householder <ehouseholder@antiochca.gov> wrote:
“Good afternoon Mr. Rocha,
I hope you are doing well.
Our office received a call today from Jacob (Stull), Supervisor at Contra Costa County Elections Division, regarding your Ballot Designation.
Jacob said that your proposed ballot designation has more than 3 words “Retired Antioch High School Principal.” The 1st alternate ballot designation listed “Retired Principal/Educator”; Educator is not your current position as you stated that you are retired, and your main source of income is your pension.
Jacob did approve your second alternate ballot designation as “Retired Principal.” I simply wanted to share this information with you.
Thank you. Have a great week.
Best wishes,
Ellie Householder, MPP
Antioch City Clerk | Elections Official”
——————————–
Questions for Householder, Staff
An email was sent to City Clerk Ellie Householder and her staff on Friday night, Aug. 23, 2024, asking, how is it that Dominique King can use the ballot designation of “Businesswoman, Educator, Consultant” even though she isn’t a teacher, doesn’t have a four-year college degree nor a teaching credential, yet, her opponent, Louie Rocha can’t use the same term of ‘Educator’, even though he has been in education for most of his career.
They were also provided with a section from the press release announcing King’s campaign which describes her work as follows: “For the last seven years, King has volunteered and supported Antioch families through educational advocacy by helping families with children who need additional educational support, including children with special needs.” The city clerk and staff were then asked why Mrs. King wasn’t required to use the term, “educational advocate” which more accurately describes what she does rather than “Educator”. Finally, they were asked if King had told them that she works as a teacher, and if so, did she tell them where she teaches.
Householder responded on Tuesday, Aug. 27 writing, “Louie stated that he is in fact a Retired Principal and his main source of income was his pension. ‘Educator’ was also included in his ballot designation. Unfortunately, we were notified by the Elections Supervisor Jacob (after submitting Louie’s candidate paperwork), that ‘Educator’ was not permissible as Louie is retired.”
So, even though, since he retired, Rocha has been hired periodically as an interim assistant principal and fills in for teachers in the classroom in AUSD schools, which would mean he continues to work as an educator, because it’s not his primary source of income, he can’t use the title of educator.
“For Dominique, a part of her primary profession includes educating, which she explains in her ballot designation worksheet. Educator does not mean teacher,” Householder continued. “When our office reviewed this following the California Code of Regulations – Elections Code, we found that her designation was acceptable, since it is a part of her primary source of income.
Jacob also advised that their office would review and approve the requested candidate nomination paperwork submitted.”
While King wouldn’t explain to the Herald how she’s an educator or where she teaches, on the website for her and her husband’s business it reads, “Lean in with the Kings is family owned and operated. LIWTK mission is to educate couples and families on how to foster healthy relationships through 1. Utilizing health and wellness. 2. Enlisting the help of professionals 3. Openly speaking from our experiences. 4. Building a supportive and informative community.”
Asked why he denied Rocha’s use of the term “Educator” but approved King’s, Stull said, “The City Clerk is the determining factor for approving ballot designation. The original one was ‘Retired Antioch High School Principal’. But that was too many words. He could say he is a retired principal or retired school principal. We were trying to work with them, the City Clerk’s office.”
Asked if he had seen Rocha’s request for the designation to be “Retired/Principal/Educator,” Stull said, “No. In this case, when we spoke on the phone it was a length issue. We didn’t have the Ballot Designation Worksheet.”
“Alternate 1 was Retired Principal/Educator. You can’t use a retired designation and current designation,” the Elections Supervisor continued. “His Alternate 2 was Retired Principal and that’s what the City Clerk’s Office approved.”
“We reached out to the City Clerk about Rocha’s designation because it exceeded the word limit,” he explained.
“I don’t have Ms. King’s Ballot Designation Worksheet,” Stull stated. “The City sent me the Declaration of Candidacy, which is a form the City and County have. On the form in section 2 you put the name you want printed on the ballot. Ms. King turned in all of that with the city clerk’s office. I don’t have the justification for what that designation she requested. I don’t know if she explained educator differently. I have to go with what the City provided us, Ms. King’s three professions, occupations or vocations.”
Asked how she can use both titles of “Businesswoman” and “Educator” if the educating is done through her business and how the term educator does not mean teacher he said, “I don’t know if there are definitions within the Elections Code to define terms.” A review shows there isn’t a definition for “educator” in the state Elections Code.
The Declaration of Candidacy is not a public document and the City Clerk’s Office staff would not provide it following a request by the Herald.
County Elections Division Sides with the City on Ballot Designations
“It’s supposed to be your principal profession, occupation or vocation, a maximum of three words separated by slashes,” Stull explained. “We have to qualify the candidate, but the final say is with the City, and we side with the City. They’re the filing official. We will provide guidance when needed.”
“We reached out to Rocha because his designation was too long. King’s was fine,” he added.
Additional Questions for City Clerk, Staff
Under the California Code of Regulations Title 2. Administration Division 7. Secretary of State Chapter 7. Ballot Designations in subsection 20716 Unacceptable Ballot Designations it reads, “The following types of activities are distinguished from professions, vocations and occupations and are not acceptable as ballot designations pursuant to Elections Code Section 13107, subdivision (a)(3):
Avocations: An avocation is a casual or occasional activity, diversion or hobby pursued principally for enjoyment and in addition to the candidate’s principal profession, vocation or occupation. Avocations may include, but are not limited to, hobbies, social activities, volunteer work (except as set forth in Section 20714.5 of this Chapter), and matters pursued as an amateur.
Householder and the City Clerk’s staff were then asked additional questions, including regarding what she wrote in her response about King. They were asked what “is a part of her primary source of income” that refers to teaching, and if it is through her and her husband’s “Lean In With the Kings” business. While on their website it reads, “LIWTK mission is to educate couples and families on how to foster healthy relationships,” even if that’s the basis for the approval of King’s use of the term in her ballot designation, how can she use both titles of Businesswoman and Educator if the educating is done through her business, and shouldn’t it be one or the other, Householder and staff were also asked.
Since King hasn’t said if her position as Chief Information Officer for the Oscar Grant Foundation is a paid or volunteer position, and if the latter, it would mean it’s not her profession, vocation or occupation, as is the requirement in the California Code of Regulations for Ballot Designations – Ballot Designations :: California Secretary of State, the City Clerk and staff were asked if that was the position to which King’s title of “Educator” applies.
Householder was specifically asked, since when does the term educator not mean teacher and where she obtained that definition. She was informed that it’s not defined in the State Code of Regulations and that the dictionary definition according to Merriam-Webster is clear that it means “teacher”.
The City Clerk was asked what definition she is using and the source for that definition.
Finally, Householder and her staff were asked if King is a volunteer educational advocate, a part-time columnist for the Clayton/Concord Pioneer, serves as the Chief Information Officer for the Oscar Grant Foundation (either for pay or as a volunteer) and doesn’t have a four-year degree in either education or counseling, then isn’t her work through her LIWTK business done as an amateur.
Dominique King’s Ballot Designation Worksheet pages 1 & 2. (Redactions in black by City Clerk’s Office. Further redactions in grey by the Herald). Source: Antioch City Clerk’s Office
Candidates Explain, Defend Use of Titles on Ballot Designation Worksheet, King Using Business for All Three Titles
Candidates must submit a Ballot Designation Worksheet with up to three options and justifications for each. After obtaining copies of both King’s and Rocha’s worksheets, which show King is using her “Lean in With the Kings” business as justification for all three ballot titles, more and pointed questions were then sent to Householder and City Clerk staff.
They were asked shouldn’t the different titles be for different jobs a candidate holds or businesses they own or must, or can, they all refer to the same occupation, vocation and profession.
Furthermore, they were informed that in the list of questions on the form that candidates are required to mark boxes next to “Yes” or “No” to and initialize, it reads under question “3. Use more than three total words for your principal professions, vocations, or occupations?”
Householder and her staff were asked, shouldn’t those three words describe three different professions, vocations or occupations and can a candidate use more than one title in their ballot designation to refer to the same profession, vocation or occupation.
King’s Ballot Designation worksheet offered three options including her Proposed option which she was granted, Alternate 1 of “Businesswoman/Consultant” and Alternate 2 of “Businesswoman/Educator”. Beneath the justification for each of the ballot designation options she wrote under “Current or most recent job title: Cofounder Owner Start Date: 2019, Employer Name or Business: Lean In With The Kings llc. Under the name of the “Person who can verify this information” she provided Kenneth King, her husband, as well as his phone number and personal email address. Under King’s second and third choices she merely wrote “Same As Above” for the latter information.
King’s Justification for use of her 1st PVO (profession(s), vocation(s), or occupation) reads, “I co-own this business with my husband. This is my primary source of income. Education make up a large percentage of daily operations. Consulting with client on initiatives & programs is a part of our business model.”
For the Justification for use of 2nd PVO, King wrote, “As a businesswoman consulting is a portion of how we shape initiatives & programs created when outsourcing with companies or organizations.” For the Justification for use of 3rd PVO she wrote, “Education is our focus in how to engage and empower personal, relational and communal relationships. Programs are structured and require planning and preparation.”
Then, for the Justifications for the use of her 1st, 2nd and 3rd PVO’s, even though she only offered two each for her Alternate ballot Designation 1 and 2 she repeatedly wrote, “Same As Above”.
On Rocha’s Ballot Designation Worksheet as Justification for the Proposed Ballot Designation of “Retired Antioch High School Principal”, under Justification for use of 1st PVO he wrote, “I was principal of Antioch High School, retired in 2022.” For the 2nd and 3rd PVO’s he didn’t write anything. Then for the Justification for the Alternate Ballot Designations 1 and 2, Rocha simply wrote, “Same as above.”
For the person who could verify the information, Rocha wrote, Stephanie Anello, who was Antioch Unified School District Superintendent at the time, and her then-district phone number and email address.
Louie Rocha’s Ballot Designation Worksheet pages 1 & 2. (Redactions by City Clerk’s Office). Source: Antioch City Clerk’s Office
Householder Explains Reasons for Approving King’s Use of Title “Educator”
Householder responded on Saturday, Aug. 31 writing, “In regards to your question about having multiple words to describe Mrs. King’s occupation, the simple answer is that Mrs. King is both a business owner and employed by the business. She explains this on her ballot designation worksheet, which you’ve seen.”
“Many people who own a business don’t work as employees of that business,” the City Clerk continued. “To use a generic example, someone owns a restaurant. Their ownership of that restaurant doesn’t mean they are also chefs. However, if they owned the restaurant and worked as a chef there, we would allow “business owner/chef” as their ballot designation. Mrs. King is both a co-owner and employee of Lean In With the Kings, which is the rationale for the multiple words to describe her profession.”
“In regards to your previous question about ‘educator’, as stated on her ballot designation, ‘Education is our focus in how to engage and empower personal, relational, and communal relationships. Programs are structured and require planning and preparation.’ I differentiate ‘teacher’ as someone with a credential and ‘educator’ as someone who educates, instructs, or coaches on a particular topic,” Householder explained.
“The ultimate goal when assessing a ballot designation is that it be true and accurate. Our office meets and extensively discusses this with candidates when navigating what designations are allowable under the Elections Code,” she added.
More Questions for Householder
However, on King’s Ballot Designation Worksheet she only provides the title of “Co-Founder/Owner” which she wrote three times and applies to her first ballot designation. Householder was then asked, what title as an employee for the business does King use for her “Educator” title.
Householder responded on Thursday, August 5th writing, “A part of the work she does at her organization does is educational. Hence, the title “educator.” She explains that under justification 3.” But that doesn’t provide her position as an employee. The city clerk was then asked on Friday, August 6th, what is King’s position as an employee of the company which is “educational” and since she didn’t provide her employee position, how can Householder make that argument.
But the city clerk did not respond prior to publication time.
Questions for King Go Unanswered
Regarding the justifications for the three titles in her approved ballot designation King was asked several questions for clarification in an email early Thursday evening, Sept. 5th. She was first asked why she didn’t share that it’s her business through which King claim to be an educator when she was asked how she’s a teacher and where does she teach that could have been included in the article about her candidacy.
Because her worksheet under Justification for use of 1st PVO only shows that they’re part of her business model, King was asked on what initiatives and programs for clients that she has consulted.
King was also asked, with what companies and organizations does her business outsource as mentioned in her Justification for use of 2nd PVO (“Educator”) and to provide a couple examples.
The District 2 council candidate was then asked if she meant “communial” instead of “communal” under the Justification for use of 3rd PVO (“Consultant”), because the latter word could not be found in online searches. She was also asked how the education portion of their business is conducted, if do they teach your clients from books, manuals, videos, etc., are they given homework which she reviews and/or tests which she grades
She had the justifications for the latter two ballot designation titles reversed on the worksheet.
Regarding Householder’s explanation of why King can use three different titles for the same business, the candidate was reminded that on her Ballot Designation Worksheet, King only provided the title of “Co-Founder/Owner” which she wrote three times and applies to her first ballot designation. King was then asked what title as an employee of the business does she use for her “Educator” title.
Lastly, King was asked, again, if her position with the Oscar Grant Foundation is paid or volunteer.
She did not respond by publication time on Friday, Sept. 6 at 6:00 p.m.
Please check back later for any updates to this report.
