Moves Ogorchock into District 4 who announces run against Wilson in November

Torres-Walker chastises public speakers claiming using term “ignorance” and calling council “circus” is racist against Black members and is referring to them as “monkeys”

Thorpe gavels down Ogorchock at end of meeting, preventing her from speaking and calling for evaluation of interim city manager

By Allen D. Payton

During a contentious, special meeting of the Antioch City Council late Friday afternoon, on another 3-2 split vote the final redistricting map was approved, again. This time the council majority approved Draft Map A – Modified, which was politically drawn with direct input from both Mayor Lamar Thorpe and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker and is more gerrymandered than Draft Map A, which the three approved on Tuesday night – believing they had approved the modified map. The final map moves District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock into District 4, which is currently represented by Councilwoman Monica Wilson. Ogorchock threatened to run against Wilson whose seat is up for re-election in November. (See meeting video and related articles here and here)

All seven members of the public who spoke during the meeting, which began at 5:15 p.m., were in favor of either Map 91, previously rejected by a majority of council members, and Map 521, both drawn by members of the public, because they said those maps comply with the requirements in the FAIR MAPS Act, while Draft Map A – Modified does not. That’s because the final map divides three neighborhoods in violation of the act, including Mira Vista Hills, split between Districts 2 and 4, and the neighborhood between Lone Tree Way and Hillcrest Avenue south of Highway 4 and north of `Davison Drive which uses Garrow Drive as the boundary line between Districts 2 and 3, as Thorpe directed the consultants of Q2 to draw during the Feb. 22 council meeting. In addition, the neighborhood near Country Hills Drive, just east of Deer Valley Road, is divided using Asilomar and Montara Drives, as the consultants were directed to draw by Torres-Walker during that same meeting.

During Council Discussion Ogorchock Questions Torres-Walker, Announces Run for Election in District 4 in November

After Thorpe directed the consultants to make more modifications to Draft Map A – Modified, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica made a motion to adopt Map 521. That only gained Ogorchock’s support, and it failed on a 2-3 vote.

Torres-Walker then made a motion to adopt Draft Map A – Modified and Wilson seconded it.

During council discussion, Ogorchock said, “lines are just being moved to accommodate percentages, that’s it. We’re not looking at communities of interest. We’re not looking at any of the items in the FAIR MAPS Act.”

She pointed out that three maps created by members of the public, 91, 516 and 521 comply with the act.

“You are the public, we should be listening to you,” Ogorchock said to the audience.

“Is there a reason you went up Montara and you had a hard time saying Montara? Why did you go up Montara and Asilomar down to Deer Valley off of Country Hills? Why?” she asked Torres-Walker, referring to her making changes to Draft Map A the Feb. 22 meeting, in which Torres-Walker asked the consultants about Montara Drive and specifically had the consultant move the boundary line between Districts 3 and 4 further north to Asilomar Drive from Country Hills Drive as it was in Draft Map A which includes the street where Ogorchock lives.

Torres-Walker replied simply, “I just moved the lines.”

Ogorchock shot back, “why? Did you know I lived there?” to which Thorpe hit the gavel interrupting Ogorchock.

Torres-Walker replied, “I have no idea where you live.”

Ogorchock continued by saying, “residents have participated and are being ignored. Residents created the maps. They know our communities. They know where the lines should be drawn. They do. We should be listening to them.”

She then read from the requirements in state law and pointing out how Draft Map A – Modified violates the requirements to create “a district in which one may travel from any one location to another without crossing a district boundary…Asilomar, Montara, Silverado. There’s a bunch. We’re not following that one.”

“Criterion 7,” Ogorchock continued. “The council shall not adopt council district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party. Communities of interest may not include relationships with political parties, incumbents or political candidates. We’re failing on this one. Favoring and discriminating is happening on this map.”

“Criterion 6, assume to guard against all types of gerrymandering,” she stated. “This is what’s happening. We’re failing on that one. We’re gerrymandering. I’m not.”

“Criterion 5, lines need to make geographical sense,” Ogorchock pointed out. “Those lines on that map make no sense whatsoever. They’re not easy to follow. You don’t know where the streets are. If a resident drives down the street they should know I’m in District 4, I’m in District 3, I’m in District 1, I’m in District 2. They can’t tell. District lines should be straight forward.”

“When people came forward, they talked about communities of interest,” she shared. “We’ve ignored them. We’ve ignored everything.”

“If you look at Garrow Drive…same neighborhood, same socio-economic individuals in that neighborhood. You’re dividing them,” Ogorchock continued. “Silverado, Foothills. They’re from 1970’s. You have, still original homeowners up there. You’re dividing them.”

“Country Hills,” the District 3 councilwoman continued. “You’re dividing Ponderosa at Jack London (Elementary) School. I live there. You have created a map to go up Montara, specifically said Montara, to go up Montara to Asilomar to Deer Valley to put me in District 4. If that happens, I’m announcing, tonight I will be running for District 4.”

“You are breaking everything in this packet, and you are opening us up for a lawsuit,” Ogorchock concluded

Torres-Walker Chastises Public, Claims Using Terms “Ignorance” and “Circus” Against Black Officials is Racist

During public comments members of the audience criticized the council with one, Sandy Hartrick saying, “the city council should not be drawing maps. It brings into question the gerrymandering or just plain ignorance of the city council.” Another speaker, Karen Abfalter, said, “this meeting should not be happening at this hour at 5:15…this has literally become a three-ring circus. Shame on you,” to applause from the audience. That didn’t sit well with Torres-Walker who, during council discussion on the motion to adopt the final map, chastised the residents in the audience, making the claim that using the terms “ignorance” and “circus” about elected officials who are Black is racist, the latter term because it’s referring to them as monkeys. (See video)

“What I do want to say is what I have heard is references to ignorance or being ignorant and I’m just going to have to assume that this reference around ignorance is being pushed towards those on the council who just so happen to be Black,” Torres-Walker said.

Those in the audience reacted by saying “oh” and “no” and with laughter which resulted in Thorpe pounding his gavel multiple times, attempting to stop the councilwoman from continuing her rant, but she continued talking over the mayor.

“I also want to say, that what I also heard, what I also heard to myself that was absolutely ignorant was a reference to a circus,” stated Torres-Walker while raising her voice over Thorpe’s gaveling and saying, “Councilmember Torres-Walker, hold on, let me finish. Councilmember Torres-Walker.”

“And when you are talking to people of color and Black people in particular you do not reference a circus because we are not monkeys and we are not clowns,” she said as Thorpe continued to pound his gavel and call her name to get her to stop talking, which she did, briefly.

But Torres-Walker then said, “you can say I’m a monkey all you want but that just references your ignorance” as Thorpe again pounded his gavel, calling her name and saying, “excuse me”. She finally stopped speaking.

Thorpe then told the audience to not interrupt when people are speaking and offered apologies to Torres-Walker.

“I’m just tired of the racial references and the constant attacks on my leadership and the leadership of people of color on this council,” Torres-Walker then said in a calmer voice and went on to speak about the process.

Wilson, who was not present but attended the meeting online, thanked Torres-Walker for her comments.

Thorpe Gavels Down Ogorchock, Prevents Her from Speaking After Vote

He tried to limit Ogorchock to just three minutes saying what was on the agenda was public comments and that she could have three minutes just like any member of the public. Ogorchock refused the time limit and while trying to speak, calling for an evaluation of Interim City Manager Con Johnson, Thorpe gaveled her down and telling her, “you are out of order”.

“You can beat the crap out of it. I don’t care,” Ogorchock said to Thorpe. She then appealed to City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith asking, “are you going to say something? I’m part of this council and I can say what I want and I don’t have a time.”

“Let me make this clear,” Thorpe then stated. “The agenda says ‘public comments’. If you want to make public comments, that’s fine. You get three minutes like…the rest of the public. Any member of the public may comment only on unagendized items. So, you can say whatever you want for three minutes.”
“I’m a councilmember. So, therefore I’m afforded more time,” Ogorchock responded.

“I’m trying.” she tried to continue while raising her forefinger, but Thorpe cut her off saying, “excuse me. Don’t point your finger at me. Keep it down, relax.”

“I just did. I did. It goes up. No,” Ogorchock shot back. “My comments are to…”

Thorpe interrupted her, again saying, “motion to adjourn.”

“The interim city manager to have an evaluation,” she finished saying.

“Motion to adjourn,” the mayor repeated.

“Can we allot the Councilwoman Ogorchock hree minutes as a…?” Smith asked. But Thorpe interrupted him.

Torres-Walker then said, “motion to adjourn” as Thorpe said, “I did give her three minutes. She didn’t want it.”

“Motion to adjourn,” Torres-Walker repeated. “Is there a second?” Thorpe asked, to which Wilson offered a second.

It passed on a 3-2 vote with Ogorchock and Barbanica voting no. Thorpe then hit the gavel to end the meeting. (See video on the Antioch Herald Facebook page or on the complete video of the meeting on the city’s website)

Barbanica Calls Final Redistricting Map Disservice to Community

“What you just witnessed was a disservice to this community,” said Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica following the meeting. “A majority of the council voted on a 3-2 to divide three long-standing neighborhoods in our community.”

Public Speakers Respond to Torres-Walker Deny Racial Intent in Using Terms “Ignorance” and “Circus”

When asked about her use of the term “ignorance” and if she meant something racial by it, Hartrick said, “not at all. I’m just appalled that she’s taking regular English language and twisting it for her purpose. I felt bad that she got so upset by words that had no intention of implying any racial connotation.”

When asked if she meant anything racial by using the phrase “three-ring circus”, Abfalter said, “Seriously? It’s an idiom. I had to laugh. I showed my husband a video of the meeting. He said, ‘you’re right. It’s a three-ring circus.’”

“I’ve lived in this city for 35 years and this is what we get?” she asked. “I’m so disappointed. It’s so unprofessional. They’re supposed to be representing ‘we the people’. This is our city, too. Not those five. They’re supposed to represent their constituents. They’re making things miserable.”

Antioch remains in District 2

On March 10, 2022, the BART Board of Directors voted to approve a final redistricting map for the nine districts which will affect elections for the next 10 years. View the presentation for the 3/10/22 board meeting

According to the Map Plan E2 Description, “This plan presents districts with varying levels of similarity to the current BART districts. The greatest change is in District 7 with only 27.9% of its current population remaining in District 7. The next district to show major changes is District 3 with 31.3% of its current population remaining in the proposed Plan E2, District 3.

District 4 maintains 48.8% of its current population. District 1 maintains greater than 75% of its current population. Districts 5, 8, and 9 maintain greater than 81% of their current populations. The districts most similar to the current boundaries are District 2 with 91.4% of its current population and District 6 with 95.6% of its current population.”

Most of Contra Costa County is now in Districts 1, 2 and 3, with portions of San Ramon in District 5.

District 2

District 2 is in Contra Costa County and includes the City of Pittsburg, City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, City of Oakley, the Northeastern part of the City of Concord including the former Naval Weapons Station, and the Northern part of the City of Martinez including the unincorporated neighborhoods of Mountain View and Vine Hill.

BART Stations included in District 2: Concord (shared with District 1), North Concord / Martinez, Pittsburg / Bay Point, eBART Transfer, Pittsburg Center and Antioch.

District 1

District 1 is in Contra Costa County and includes the Southern portion of the City of Martinez, City of Pleasant Hill, City of Walnut Creek, Town of Danville, the Northern part of the City of San Ramon, City of Lafayette, the Southern part of the City of Concord, including Cowell, Four Corners, and Meinert, City of Moraga, City of Orinda, and City of Clayton.

BART Stations included in District 1: Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre and Concord (shared with District 2)

District 3

District 3 is in both Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and includes the City of Hercules, City of Pinole, City of San Pablo, City of Richmond, City of El Cerrito, City of Albany, the majority of the City of Berkeley including the University of California Berkeley and excepting a few neighborhoods to the South of Ashby Avenue, and unincorporated parts of Contra Costa County including North Richmond, El Sobrante, Rodeo and Crockett.

BART Stations included in District 3: Richmond, El Cerrito del Norte, El Cerrito Plaza, North Berkeley, Downtown Berkeley and Ashby (shared with District 7)

District 5

District 5 is in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and includes a portion of the City of Hayward ranging from the Castro Valley BART station in the North to the Hayward station in the South. Major places and landmarks in this area include the Bishop Ranch Regional Open Space, Lake Chabot Regional Park, Knowland Park, Fairview, Sunol Regional Wilderness, and San Antonio Reservoir. District 5 also includes the City of Pleasanton expect for a portion near Kilkare Woods, City of Livermore, City of Dublin, the Southeastern part of San Ramon, and rural areas of east Alameda County.

BART Stations included in District 5: Hayward (shared with District 4), Castro Valley, West Dublin / Pleasanton and Dublin / Pleasanton

The new districts will be in effect for the November elections which include Districts 2, currently represented by Director Mark Foley, 4, 6 and 8. Districts 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 will be up for election in 2024.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Council majority voted for Draft Map A Tuesday night, expected to switch to Draft Map A – Modified which moves Councilwoman Ogorchock from District 3 to 4; legal challenge expected

By Allen D. Payton

Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe has called a special meeting for Friday, March 11 at 5:15 PM on redistricting to choose a final redistricting map, in spite of the fact the council already adopted one on a 3-2 vote Tuesday night. While there was confusion as to which map was adopted, that was cleared up by the video of the meeting which shows District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker say, “I’d like to make a motion that the council adopt Map A, Draft Map A” which was followed by District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson seconding the motion. (See related article)

They were joined by Thorpe in voting for Draft Map A, with Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica, who supported Map 521 and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock who was still in support of Map 91, voting no. Map 91 had previously been rejected by a majority of council members and Draft Map A – Modified and Map 521 were moved forward to Tuesday night’s meeting from the Feb. 22 meeting. However, in addition to those maps, all the other maps drawn by the consultants of Q2 Data & Research and members of the public were included in the council’s agenda packet. Redistricting ACC030822  (See all the maps on the Council’s Redistricting webpage)

As previously reported, Barbanica said on Wednesday that he will be unable to attend Friday’s meeting due to “a previous engagement”.

Draft Map A – Modified Moves Ogorchock from District 3 to 4

The council majority is expected to switch from Draft Map A adopted on Tuesday night to Draft Map A – Modified which splits the Mira Vista Hills neighborhood and moves the boundary between Districts 2 and 4 from Lone Tree Way to Garrow Drive, dividing that neighborhood, the modification which the consultants of Q2 were directed to do by Thorpe. For the neighborhood near Country Hills Drive, the modification to that part of the map was directed to be done by Torres-Walker. That moves District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock into District 4 and would allow her to run against Wilson who is up for re-election in November.

Likewise, Map 91 would have moved Wilson from District 4 into District 3 by moving the boundary line in the current district map and in both Maps A from the Mokelumne Trail to Lone Tree Way. It would have prevented Wilson from running for re-election in November unless she moved. At one point during the process, Maps 91 and B were the two finalists chosen by the council, with 91 supported by the majority of those who offered public comments, but were both later rejected.

Members of the public spoke against Draft Map A – Modified during Tuesday’s meeting because they said it divides neighborhoods in violation of the state’s Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities and Political Subdivisions (FAIR MAPS) Act which was passed by the legislature in 2019. It has a maximum population deviation of 7.71% between Districts 3 and 4. Map 521 doesn’t divide any neighborhoods and complies with the act, using major roadways as boundary lines to divide the districts. It has a total deviation of 2.15% between Districts 1 and 3.

State, Federal Law Requirements New Map Must Follow

According to the city staff report on the matter for the council’s meeting on Tuesday, March 8, 2022, “The districts must…comply with the FAIR MAPS Act, which was adopted by the California legislature as AB 849 and took effect January 1, 2020. Under the Act, the City Council shall draw and adopt boundaries using the following criteria in the listed order of priority (Elections Code 21621(c)):

1. Comply with the federal requirements of equal population and the Voting Rights Act
2. Be geographically contiguous
3. Undivided neighborhoods and “communities of interest” (socio-economic geographic areas that should be kept together)
4. Display easily identifiable boundaries
5. Be compact (do not bypass one group of people to get to a more distant group of people)
6. Shall not favor or discriminate against a political party.”

Further, the staff report reads, “The Final Redistricting Map will comply with the federal requirements of equal population and the Voting Rights Act, and the California FAIR MAPS Act, in the following manner:

(1) The districts are geographically contiguous. The districts are arrayed in a simple and logical form without any islands and minimal intrusions from the area of one district into another;

(2) To the extent practicable, the Final Redistricting Map respects the geographic integrity of local neighborhoods and local communities of interest. The Council heard testimony about what constitute communities of interest in the public eye.

(3) The districts are easily identifiable and understandable by residents. The districts in the Final Redistricting Map form a relatively simple pattern.

(4) To the extent practicable, the districts are geographically compact. Their configurations for the most part are compact, simple shapes, with nearby populations included in the same districts.

(5) The districts are balanced in terms of total population and voting age population. The districts are well within the one-person/one-vote deviations permitted under federal and state voting rights laws.

(6) The districts conform to concentration of minority voters. The Final Redistricting Map creates one majority/minority Black voting district.”

Legal Challenge Expected

If the city council adopts Draft Map A – Modified a legal challenge by residents is expected, as occurred in Martinez, which lead to the formation of their independent citizens redistricting commission. As previously reported, in that city’s process, the commission chooses the map, and the council members have no say.

Viewing and Public Comments

City Council meetings are televised live on Comcast channel 24, AT&T U-verse channel 99, or live stream at City Council Meeting LIVE – City of Antioch, California (antiochca.gov).

The public has the opportunity to address the City Council on each agenda item. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during “Public Comments”.

Members of the public wishing to provide public comments, may do so in one of the following ways (#2 pertains to the Zoom Webinar Platform):

1. IN PERSON Fill out a Speaker Request Form, available near the entrance doors, and place in the Speaker Card Tray near the City Clerk before the City Council Meeting begins.
2. VIRTUAL To provide oral public comments during the meeting, please click the following link to register in advance to access the meeting via Zoom Webinar: https://www.antiochca.gov/speakers

You will be asked to enter an email address and a name. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. After registering, you will receive an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting.

When the Mayor announces public comments, click the “raise hand” feature in Zoom. For instructions on using the “raise hand” feature in Zoom, visit: https://www.antiochca.gov/raise_hand. When calling into the meeting using the Zoom Webinar telephone number, press *9 on your telephone keypad to raise

your hand. Please ensure your Zoom client is updated so staff can enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak.

Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When you are called to speak, please limit your comments to the time allotted (350 words, up to 3 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor).

The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted.

3. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT If you wish to provide a written public comment, you may do so in one of the following ways by 3:00 p.m. the day of the City Council Meeting:

(1) Fill out an online speaker card, located at https://www.antiochca.gov/speaker_card,

Or (2) Email the City Clerk’s Department at cityclerk@ci.antioch.ca.us.

Please note: Written public comments received by 3:00 p.m. the day of the City Council Meeting will be shared with the City Council before the meeting, entered into the public record, retained on file by the City Clerk s Office, and available to the public upon request. Written public comments will not be read during the City Council Meeting.

Torres-Walker clearly stated “Draft Map A” in her motion

Members of public claim it’s gerrymandered and out of compliance with FAIR MAPS Act, lawsuit expected

By Allen D. Payton

During a special meeting/study session Tuesday night held at 5:30 p.m., the Antioch City Council on a 3-2 vote adopted redistricting Draft Map A. However, confusion arose on Wednesday over which map was actually adopted, since the council had the options of Draft Map A, drawn by the consultants of Q2 and which four council members previously rejected, and Draft Map A – Modified, which was modified during the Feb. 22 council meeting by Mayor Lamar Thorpe and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, and was part of the council’s agenda packet. In addition, Map 521 which was drawn by a member of the public, was also discussed by council members and public speakers during the meeting.

After input from the public and discussion by the council members, Thorpe asked if there was a motion. Torres-Walker said, “I’d like to make a motion that the council adopt Map A, Draft Map A” and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson seconded it. Then without further discussion Thorpe cast the deciding vote, while both Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock voted no.

But due to the confusion by council members and City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, an effort was made to schedule a special meeting for Friday, March 11 at 4:30 p.m. for a revote by the council.

Questions for Council, City Attorney

Due to the confusion by members of the public, questions were emailed Wednesday morning to Torres-Walker and Wilson, copying City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, Thorpe, Barbanica and Ogorchock asking, “as the maker and seconder of the motion to adopt Map A, was your intent to adopt Draft Map A or Draft Map A – Modified?”

Smith was asked, “was that the final vote or was it just to move the final map forward for a final vote during the regular council session at the next meeting which will begin at 7 PM?”

Torres-Walker, Wilson and Thorpe were then asked, “why go through the entire process of having an online mapping tool for the public to use to submit maps if you were just going to reject them all and choose a map drawn by the consultants based on your input, and who admitted they don’t know Antioch like you and the residents do, and in spite of the fact the vast majority of public speakers were in favor of either Maps 91 or 521? Was that all a sham and just for show to make people feel like they were having a voice?”

Barbanica Responds, Opposes Both Map A’s

“It was crystal clear that the motion was made for Map A and was seconded by another council member and adopted on a 3-2 vote,” he responded. “I was against Map A. I’m still against Map A.”

“I received a call from the city attorney, today who told me there was potential confusion about which map was approved and if I had time to attend a special meeting on Friday,” Barbanica continued. “I told him ‘no, I have a previous engagement’ and that “Map A is what was adopted’.”

When asked which Map A he believes was adopted Barbanica responded, “Draft Map A, not modified.”

“I don’t support Draft Map A or Modified Map A because they are bad for the community as they divide neighborhoods and communities of interest,” he continued. “I support Map 91 as I have since it was first presented. I was willing to support Map 521 but that was voted down on a 2-3 vote. I supported Map 91 but that was voted down on a 2-3 vote.”

Herald Meeting Video Confirms Torres-Walker said “Draft Map A” in Her Motion

After reviewing the cell phone video filmed by this reporter in attendance at the meeting, Torres-Walker can be clearly heard saying “Draft Map A” in her motion, before Wilson seconded it and the vote on the motion passed 3-2.

In addition, the council meeting video posted on the city’s website Wednesday afternoon also shows what Torres-Walker said in her motion, for “Draft Map A”, beginning at the 22:50 mark.

No response was received by Smith regarding the need for another vote or if last night’s vote was the final on the council’s new redistricting map.

Lawsuit by Residents Expected

Members of the public spoke and said Draft Map A – Modified was not in compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act which was adopted and went into effect January 2020, after the current Antioch City Council districts were approved in 2018. Draft Map A was drawn based on that map, with one minor adjustment between Districts 3 and 4 which divides a neighborhood which the act says must be avoided if possible. The other map considered by the council during the meeting was Map 521, drawn by a member of the public, and doesn’t divide any neighborhoods.

As a result, discussions have begun of a possible lawsuit by residents, as occurred in Martinez, which forced that city council to form an independent redistricting commission and the adoption of the final map by the commission without any input from the council members.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Lori Wilson running to fill Frazier vacancy through end of year

Still time for write-in candidates to enter race

She’s also only candidate so far to file for June Primary for regular election in new AD11

Current district includes Antioch, new one doesn’t

By Allen D. Payton

On Wednesday, Feb. 9, Suisun City Mayor Lori D. Wilson officially filed for candidacy in the April 5th Special Primary Election race for California’s current 11th Assembly District. The vacancy was caused by former Assemblyman Jim Frazier’s resignation at the end of December. By 5:00 PM the next day, Wilson, a Democrat, learned she was the only candidate to file.

Wilson’s campaign issued a press release on Friday, Feb. 11 stating, “She still intends to run a strong campaign to talk to voters about their concerns and tell them her story. Wilson believes that a strong voter turnout in every election is important to democracy.”

Still Time for Write-In Candidates to File and Run, Could Force Run-Off in Special General Election

However, there is still time for write-in candidates to file and run in the race. According to the Special Primary Election Calendar on the California Secretary of State’s website, which isn’t included in the Special Primary Election Calendar on the county’s Elections Office website, the “Period for all write-in candidates to file their Statement of Write-In Candidacy and Nomination Papers with the county elections official” began Feb. 7 and runs through the deadline on March 22, 2022. Those interested and who live in Contra Costa County must obtain the necessary documents from the Elections Office in Martinez.

If a candidate does not receive a majority of the votes of at least 50% plus one, a special general election will be held. The top two candidates in the primary will face off in the general election. While a write-in candidate’s name will not appear on the special primary election ballot, if a run-off is necessary, the name of the write-in candidate who is one of the top two candidates in the primary will appear on the special general election ballot. Whomever wins the election will fill the vacancy in the current 11th District through the end of the year. If no write-in candidate files, Wilson automatically wins will be sworn in sometime in April.

About Wilson

According to her LinkedIn account, since July 201 Wilson has worked as the Director of Finance for developer KB Home in Fairfield, and in the same position for Meritage Homes from 2011 to January 2019. Prior to working in the private sector, she worked for two non-profit organizations, first as Program Director for Liberty, then as Chief Accountant for Fair Housing Napa Valley. Prior to that she worked as an auditor for Solano County from 2003 to 2006.

Wilson earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Accountancy from Cal State Sacramento.

She has “been endorsed by Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, who joins a long list of state and local elected officials who have voiced their support for the campaign,” the press release reads.

“Lori Wilson has the right priorities and experience to represent Solano and Contra Costa Counties in the Assembly,” the press release continues. “As Mayor of Suisun City she has helped solve tough problems and delivered for her constituents. We need strong women leaders in Sacramento and I am proud to endorse Lori Wilson for Assembly.”

According to her campaign website, Wilson is the first Black female mayor to serve in all of Solano County She has served as Mayor of Suisun City since 2018 and was first elected to the Suisun City Council in 2012. According to her press release, “During her tenure, she has worked tirelessly to make Suisun City a welcoming and safe home to all. Wilson has a track record of fiscal responsibility while leading efforts to bring more housing, jobs and diversity to Suisun City. Lori Wilson is committed to fighting for the residents of California’s 11th Assembly District and she has a track record of creating good jobs, keeping our community safe and increasing the quality of life for all her constituents.”

According to the bio on her campaign website, Wilson is “A native Californian raised on the west side of Fresno, Lori is married to her high school sweetheart Chavares Wilson, a retired Air Force Reserve Technical Sergeant. They have been blessed with two sons, Tyler and Kiren, and a daughter-in-law, Brittney. They have enjoyed living in Suisun City since 2004 after being stationed at Travis AFB for 5 years.”

Only Candidate to File for Regular Election Also

Wilson has also filed to run in the regular election in the June primary, for the newly redrawn district which no longer includes Antioch. To date, in that race she is the only candidate to file in either Solano County or Contra Costa County, as well. Candidates have until March 16 to file papers to run, since the seat is currently vacant.

For more information about Wilson visit ElectLoriWilson.com.

Past Write-In Candidate for Assembly District 11

This reporter was the last candidate to successfully run as a write-in in a primary election for Assembly District 11, in 1998, garnering enough votes to be included on the November ballot. He lost to then-incumbent Assemblyman Tom Torlakson.

Claim they’re best friends, have each other’s back, threaten those who “mess with” them, speak of ice fishing, prostitution and refer to them as “funny”

They, three council members, city staff refuse to answer questions on appropriateness, if they rented the chambers, who has access to and proper use of chambers

“I personally believe the chambers should be used for their intended purpose, which is for official city business” – Councilman Barbanica

“The Council Chambers usage is controlled by the City Clerk!” – former City Clerk Arne Simonsen

By Allen D. Payton

Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe and City Clerk Ellie Householder have made and posted to his TikTok account, on Feb. 16, three videos in which they can be seen mouthing the words of others about ice fishing, prostitution, and how they have each other’s back and that those who “mess with” them “better pray and run”, taken inside the City Council Chambers in February.

The words on the first video made in the council chambers, read “When the Mayor and City Clerk have each other’s back.” In it, Thorpe and Householder are seen standing next to each other behind the council dais, while he points to her and himself, mouths the words of a speaker saying “she’s my best friend. You mess with her, you mess with me, you mess with me, you mess with her. You mess with us, you better pray and run.”

The hashtags include #antiochmayor, #sfbayarea, #eastbay, #politics, #mayor, #cityclerk, #fyp, #trending, #politics, #blacktictok, #gotmyback, #friends, #antioch.

In a second video with the hashtags #duetwithme, #fypシ, #fyp (meaning For You Page), #trending, #funny, #bait, #hudsonspringspark, #hudsonohio, #citycouncil, #mayor, #iceshanty, and #icefishing, Thorpe is seen sitting in his mayor’s chair at the council dais and mouthing the words of someone else speaking of ice fishing and ice shanties leading to prostitution. Householder mouths the words “what kind of bait are you using?”

In the third TikTok video with the hashtags #fypシ, fyp, #mayor, #cityclerk, #funny, #citycouncil, #dontdothat, #dontdothatchallenge, #duetwithme, the words on the front read, “When the City Clerk doesn’t let Mayor end the meeting early”. Householder mouths the words of a speaker, “don’t do that” while pointing her finger at Thorpe, who is, again seen seated in his chair at the council dais. He responds mouthing the words, “I’m not doing anything”

In some of his other TikTok posts, Thorpe refers to himself as #dopeblackmayor. According to Dictionary.com, “a dope can be a fool, a slang term for ‘excellent’, or refer to drugs like marijuana.”

Questions for Thorpe, Householder, Council Members, City Staff Go Unanswered

Questions were sent on Sunday evening, Feb. 27, 2022, to Thorpe, Householder, copying the other four council members, Interim City Manager Con Johnson and City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith asking, “what day and time were those videos filmed, there?

How long did you spend filming inside the chambers with the lights on?

Did you rent the use of the chambers and pay the city to do so?

Was anyone else from city staff there with you?

In the first video, you two claim to be best friends and that if anyone “messes with” you, they “better pray and run”. Could that be considered a threat to your political opponents, specifically those leading and supporting the recalls against each of you? If not, what do you mean by “mess with” you? Why would people who do, need to “pray and run”?

Also, do you believe prostitution is a humorous matter?

For all of you, is it appropriate for anyone to be using the council chambers, including sitting in the mayor’s chair, for such activities?

Who has keys and access to the council chambers when they aren’t being used for official city business?

Is there a city ordinance or policy on the use of the council chambers for non-official city business activities?

Can any of you point to a time in the past when the council chambers were ever used for such an activity?

Does the city ever rent out the use of the council chambers?

The last five questions were also sent to former Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen Tuesday morning, March 1.

Ogorchock, Barbanica Respond

Only District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock responded as of Tuesday morning, March 1 writing, “Good luck on getting a response. It doesn’t look good for Ellie to say she has his back!!”

When pressed further asking, again on Monday morning, “is it appropriate?”, Ogorchock did not respond.

UPDATE 1: When reached for comment, District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica said, “My belief is that it’s an honor to be able to sit in the chambers and preside over the city’s business. It degrades what it stands for. That room and those seats is for the purpose of conducting the business of the people of Antioch and believe it should be treated very serious. I personally believe the chambers should be used for their intended purpose, which is for official city business. People have plenty of other places to shoot videos.”

Asked who has keys to the council chambers he responded, “We all have keys. Our door cards work on the door to the Chambers. So, we have access to the Chambers, but I have never considered using them for anything other than official business for the people of Antioch.”

Simonsen Responds

UPDATE 2: Former City Clerk Simonsen responded to the questions as follows:

Is it appropriate for anyone to be using the council chambers, including sitting in the mayor’s chair, for such activities? “No.”

Who has keys and access to the council chambers when they aren’t being used for official city business? The Council Chambers usage is controlled by the City Clerk!!!”

Is there a city ordinance or policy on the use of the council chambers for non-official city business activities? “Yes, there is a policy. I don’t have it, however.”

Can any of you point to a time in the past when the council chambers were ever used for such an activity? “No.”

Does the city ever rent out the use of the council chambers? “Yes. The Council Chambers can be rented out. The Master Fee Schedule has the costs and security deposit.”

Please check back later for any other updates to this report.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

 

 

Claims mayor is lying about recall proponents

Publisher’s Note: With apologies, this letter was received in the Herald’s junk email folder on Wednesday, Feb. 9 but not discovered until Sunday, February 27.

Dear Editor:  

Mayor Lamar Thorpe, tonight you lost a supporter.  I am sure my one vote won’t be missed and my one signature that I have decided to give towards your recall won’t be the difference maker, but I am choosing to sign anyway.  I was firmly in your camp when you ran for council in 2016 and once again when you ran for mayor in 2020.  I was sold on the vision that you said you had for our city, on your campaign slogan of transparency, and your promise to listen to us citizens.

When the news hit that you’d been served with recall papers I was angry for you.  Although I thought the post of the picture of you with the framed petition was childish and beneath an elected official, I brushed it aside as an act of a hurt man that wanted to appear strong.  I believed you when you said it was a very small group of individuals that wanted you removed.  I even bought into the idea that it was racially motivated.

Then I saw you start to advertise for a fundraiser calling the residents trying to recall you “Karens”.  I couldn’t believe that you would stoop to name calling and bullying.  The mayor of our city should be above any tit-for-tat tactics, and it was really off putting to see you treat residents that way.  You are still their mayor and are supposed to represent the best of us.  This was a poor representation.

Sadly, I missed the celebration of our city that took place downtown on Sunday.  I would have liked to attend but was at least able to see the pictures and watch the videos online.  I cannot even explain to you my level of embarrassment and horror when I heard that an event that was meant to celebrate the last 150 years in Antioch was used as an opportunity to discredit the recall attempt against you.  Your speech took away some of the joy instead of enriching the day.

The tipping point came today.  I happened upon a TikTok video of you making fun of the recall attempt, yet again.  What I saw were two boldfaced lies.  The first lie was that those attempting to recall you are against body-worn cameras.  Mayor Thorpe, meeting minutes are public and easily accessible.  The names I have seen advertising your recall signings are repeated, several times, in the minutes asking for body-worn cameras.  This was not a simple misunderstanding; you are actively attempting to discredit these individuals.

The second lie was that they do not want the Sycamore Corridor cleaned up.  Did you know there was a neighborhood cleanup, here last month?  I did, because I live here.  It was the recall volunteers that were here, walking the streets, picking up the trash, and chatting with us residents.  This video made me want to look more at your social media and that is where you lost me.

I could not believe what I saw when I went to your Facebook page.  You posted that you’ve cleaned up Sycamore, you even had the police here to take a photo with you.  How can you post this and completely ignore the woman and teen that were killed here?  How can you say it’s safe when there was a shootout here in broad daylight just last week?  The only conclusion I can draw is that you wanted to appear as if you’ve made these changes because the recall petition mentioned how you responded to the businesses in Sycamore Square.  You created an illusion to make it look like you’ve done something there when in fact nothing has changed.  You are trying to use those of us that live here as a political pawn, and I am ashamed that I ever supported you.

Miguel Vazquez

Antioch

Torres-Walker’s suggested changes moves Ogorchock from District 3 to 4

By Allen D. Payton

During their special meeting study session on redistricting on Tuesday night, Feb. 22, 2022, the Antioch City Council, after voting against Map 91 again, and new Map 521, they chose to move that map forward along with a modified Map A, for consideration at another study session on March 8. A representative of Common Cause told the council the city could face a lawsuit from anyone in a neighborhood that is divided and warned them not do so in their final map choice.

Mayor Lamar Thorpe and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker asked the consultants of Q2 Data and Research to make modifications to Map A. Torres-Walker’s changes moves the neighborhood in which District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock lives, into District 4.

Had Map 91 been adopted, it would have resulted in the neighborhood in which District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson lives being moved into District 3, which means she could not run for re-election, in the November election, or would have had to move in order to live within the new District 4 boundaries.

The council reviewed all the maps, including three drawn by the consultants of Q2 and 12 submitted by members of the public. The 12 included three new submissions since the council’s Feb. 8 meeting at which they rejected both Maps B and 91, and the majority returned to Map A which four of the council members had previously rejected.

“We have a total of 15 maps, now,” said consultant Karin Mac Donald, owner and senior researcher of Q2. “We hope, tonight you will choose a final map that you can vote on at the meeting on March 7.”

City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith asked MacDonald to review all of the maps for the council and public, which Jane Hood of Q2 did.

Public Comments Again Support Map 91

Antioch resident Mark Jordan was the first to speak during public comments chastising City Clerk Ellie Householder for not having the minutes of this year’s council meetings on the city’s website, just like was the problem, last year. (See related article)

“First, it would be helpful if the City Clerk would post the minutes on the City website,” he said.

“On the 25th of January, you voted on two final maps. On the mayor’s Facebook page he said there were two map finalists. Then the mayor, on his own volition, decided to start over again. That’s the very definition of authoritarianism. It’s not democratic. It’s not what the 115,000 people of Antioch want.”

“The law was changed in 2019. AB849 was passed,” Jordan continued. “There were very specific requirements that were changed. Anyone can petition the Superior Court. Currently, you’re violating your own rules by backing up” and reconsidering Map A.

Sandy Hartrick spoke against Map A because it was the only option the council majority said they would consider and it “clearly divides a community of interest.”

William Chapman spoke next, saying, “My concern is in the continuity of the areas. I have worked in the past with campaigns. We need boundaries that are definable…that keep people together. The map needs to have districts that are bound by normal conditions, major roads. The communities should stay together as communities…as they vote.”

“A resident for going on 37 years in Antioch. I know it pretty well,” said Mary Chapman. “The only comment I have, tonight is to see the final map show all the council members…and not favor a particular political candidate.”

“The redistricting…as mandated by the law should follow state law. So, I read AB849,” said Tom Hartrick. “The map shouldn’t favor political parties or candidates. The map moved forward at the last meeting doesn’t follow that. It appears the public is speaking…if we are ignored the council is opening us up to a lawsuit under the FAIR MAPS Act.”

Lindsey Amezcua also spoke about the FAIR MAPS Act and the requirement on keeping neighborhoods and communities of interest together.

“Most of the maps violate state law,” she said. “There are three maps left that follow state law. It’s fiscally reckless to adopt any map that doesn’t follow state law.”

Alicia Taylor said, “I like Map 21 and not 91. But I must stick with my original and support 91….it follows major roads.”

Former Antioch Mayor and current School Board Trustee Mary Rocha said, “I thought you had made a decision. I don’t understand. I want to speak on Map 91. This map does not divide any communities of interest. It follows the Voting Rights Act. I’m still in support of Map 91.”

On Zoom, Harry Thurston, who spoke in favor of Map B during last meeting, this time spoke in favor of Draft Map A. It “most closely represents the demographics in the city,” he said.

Francisco Torres from ACE organization, who also supported Map B, during the last meeting, also spoke in favor of Map A.

Another speaker spoke in favor of Map A. “There’s five different criteria. The key word at the beginning is ‘to the extent practical’. I believe Map A does the best job. Nothing’s going to be perfect,” she said. “Map A is the most perfect of all the other ones. It was made by the professional contractors. Those who are saying it’s against the law are saying the professionals don’t know what they’re doing.”

Gretchen Egen, a member of the Martinez Independent Redistricting Commission said, “I am in favor of Map 91. Map A completely does not follow the criteria. Map 91 follows Lone Tree Way. I sat in the chambers during the lawsuit against Martinez. The only reason we lost was the Assembly bill passed in October 2019 had not yet passed.”

She said the council will be sued if they choose Map A.

“Your demographers don’t live there. But they said, ‘we don’t know your city,” she continued. “I implore you to listen

Dave asked the council “to adopt Map 91. It does not violate state law and is in the best interests of the city’s residents.”

Kaelen Perrochet, regional with California Common Cause, said, “We’d like to disabuse that the requirements of the FAIR MAPS Act are parameters, as Mayor Thorpe said at a previous council meeting. Partisan gerrymandering is illegal under state law. The mandate is to preserve the communities of interest. If the council does not…anyone in your city will have standing to sue. California Common Cause urges the city council to prioritize respecting…preserving communities of interest.”

Phillip Mobina said, “I want to vote for Map 91, the non-gerrymandered map. It’s clearly not gerrymandered to keep council members in their seats, so they don’t have to move.”

Council Discussion, Two Make Modifications to Map A

Mayor Lamar Thorpe said, “we have until April to get this done. This made-up stuff of gerrymandering is nonsense. To question people’s motives is wrong. Members of the public can share their thoughts.”

“If you look at the school district’s map, it divides communities of interest a lot more than we’re doing,” he added.

However, the FAIR MAPS Act does not apply to redistricting of school or special district boundaries.

District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock then made a motion to adopt Map 91 and Mayor Pro Tem and District 4 Councilman Mike Barbanica seconded the motion.

The motion failed 2-3 with Thorpe, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson voting no.

Torres-Walker then brought back up Map A.

“I support this map and I want to have a discussion about this,” she said.

The only concern I have about this, and I’ve had this concern for some time, and that’s the area south of James Donlon. I have had a concern that this portion of town now be in District 2. I’d like to look at the mapping tool…and see what that looks like.”

Consultant Jane Hood of Q2 then moved the Census Tracts south of James Donlon Blvd. from Districts 4 to 2, as in Maps 58, 91, 503, 512, 516 and 521.

Then Torres-Walker asked to keep using the mapping tool. She asked the consultant to move another section from Districts 3 to 4.

Thorpe then asked to move a section from Districts 2 to 3, using Garrow Drive instead of Lone Tree Way as the boundary.

“I’d like to look at 58, please because I believe that accomplishes that,” Barbanica then stated.

Thorpe then had Hood return to the area south of James Donlon Blvd. and divide the Mesa Ridge neighborhood between Districts 2 and 4.

“Silverado would be the street that would be the dividing line,” Thorpe said. “We can come back to this one.”

Barbanica then asked to look at 516 and 521. “Is there a difference between the two?”

“We have 512, 516 and 521. I said they are the exact,” said Hood. “They were slightly different and submitted by two different individuals.”

Barbanica then made a motion to adopt Map 521 and Ogorchock seconded the motion.

The motion would

“You can’t make that motion

“You can make a motion if that’s the final map he wants to select,” said Attorney Smith.

The motion failed 2-3 on the same split.

“I like what I’m seeing, here. I don’t mind bringing it back,” Thorpe then said. “We can bring back the one we’re working on.”

“I would like to bring the modified Map A, back,” Torres-Walker said.

“I think it’s still a working draft,” Thorpe responded.

Hood then showed the modified Map A.

“I would like to see that,” Torres-Walker said.

Both maps will be brought back at another study session on redistricting on March 8.