To prohibit election intimidation in compliance with state laws in response to concerns Pres. Trump is trying to influence results
By Dawn Kruger Community and Media Relations Coordinator Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department
Martinez, California – As voting gets underway for the November 3rd General Election, Contra Costa County’s Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters, District Attorney and Sheriff are standing together to ensure every voter can cast a ballot safely and with confidence.
California has long led the nation in protecting the right to vote, and its election safeguards keep getting stronger. The Peace Act (AB 2642), signed into law in September 2024, established clear protections for voters and election workers in all 58 counties by explicitly prohibiting intimidation and threats at the polls. It treats the presence of a firearm, or even a replica of one, at a polling place as unlawful intimidation, and it gives voters, election officials, and election workers the right to take civil legal action against anyone who tries to intimidate or coerce them.
Legislation signed by Governor Gavin Newsom this September builds on that foundation. The new laws make it a felony to tamper with ballots, election records, or voting equipment, guard voters against deepfakes and deception, and expand access to the ballot box, giving election and law enforcement officials across the state more tools to keep elections safe, secure, and fair. For Contra Costa County voters, that means every ballot, whether cast at a polling place, dropped in a drop box, or returned by mail, is protected from the moment it’s cast until the final count.
In his signing statement Newsom said, “Donald Trump won’t stop until he can exert dictatorial control over your free vote and disenfranchise millions of people this November. California will stop him at every opportunity. We have no bigger task than fighting to protect the right to vote from interference and meddling – the future of democracy is on the line. These bills today build upon the wall California has built to safeguard our electoral process.”
Contra Costa voters can vote their way with confidence, say the three County officials.
“As the Chief Elections Officer for Contra Costa County, I want to encourage all eligible Contra Costa residents to vote and to know that we expect another safe and secure election,” said Kristin B. Connelly, Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters. “I also want to reassure voters that we take extensive safety precautions in every election. We partner closely with local law enforcement to ensure that all Contra Costa Voters can feel confident voting with their preferred method either by drop box, through the post office, or in-person.”
Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton said, “Your vote is your voice, and we will protect it. From the mailbox to the drop box to the polling place, my office and our law enforcement partners are making sure every eligible voter in Contra Costa County can cast a ballot freely, safely, and with confidence that their voice will be heard.”
“As the election approaches, the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office is working with its law enforcement partners to ensure this election is safe and that we will help protect residents’ right to vote,” said Sheriff David Livingston.
However, the Contra Costa County Elections Division still uses the controversial Dominion voting equipment purchased in 2018 that has removal flash drives, as well as Scytle software. (See related articles here, here and here)
Since then, Dominion Voting Systems, a Canadian company, was purchased in 2025 by election reform advocate Scott Leiendecker under a new company called Liberty Vote based in Denver, Colorado.
For more information on how or where to vote, visit the Contra Costa County Elections website www.contracostavote.gov.
For the Antioch City Council The Herald endorses Joy Motts in District 1 and Sandra White in District 4. Sources: Campaign photos.
Torres-Walker has accomplished much of her agenda to “reimagine Antioch”, 14 years for Wilson is more than enough, they’ve worn out their welcomeand it’s time for renewed and new leadership.
By Allen D. Payton
After much thought, review and consideration about this year’s races for the Antioch City Council, I have decided to endorse Joy Motts in District 1 and Sandra White in District 4. While that may not be much of a surprise to anyone based on my past support for each of them and opposition and challenges to the incumbents, Councilwomen Tamisha Torres-Walker in District 1 and Monica Wilson in District 4, the bottom line is they’ve each had more than enough time to accomplish what they set out to. Yet, the challenge has been all the problems they helped create and the irresponsible decisions they’ve made during that time which are reasons enough to support pretty much anyone else who might have run this year.
About the two incumbents, stealing from the name of the 1966 Clint Eastwood movie of the same name, I offer The Good, The Bad and The Ugly of their time on the Council:
The Good
Torres-Walker has served for six years, since she was elected during the height of the Black Lives Matter movement, and the defund police sentiment amongst some at the height of the COVID pandemic in 2020. She has accomplished much of what she intended in her efforts to “reimagine Antioch”. While she started out against the police Torres-Walker ended up supporting the hiring of additional police and even a police department substation in the Sycamore neighborhood, which is still the City’s highest crime area. Plus, she has pushed for and has been able to accomplish several proposals regarding police reform, including the formation of the Antioch Police Oversight Commission, affordable housing measures and efforts to secure state and federal grant funds, such as the $2 million California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) Grant.
Wilson, on the other hand, has little to show for her 14 years on the council as far as proposing ideas that were approved and implemented and has primarily been a third, fourth or fifth vote for the ideas of other council members. She does get credit for the formation of the City’s crisis response team – which I’d say is her greatest accomplishment. But she unfortunately and successfully proposed to name it after someone who would not have been helped by the team, Angelo Quinto.
I will also give them both credit for their efforts to address homelessness, which has benefited some of the unhoused residents in Antioch, mainly using federal COVID-relief funds. But the problem remains and has actually grown during their time in office.
The Bad
Natural Gas Pipeline Shut Down & Unnecessary Gas and Oil Drilling Moratorium
Wilson’s other accomplishments includes the council majority’s foolish shutdown of the natural gas pipeline that runs beneath the city, which Torres-Walker also voted for and actually resulted in even more greenhouse gas emissions, and an unnecessary moratorium on drilling for oil and gas in Antioch, even though the only person who has the rights to drill had no plans to do so nor was informed of the proposal even after it was placed on a council agenda for a vote. Plus, the council’s action can’t prevent him from exercising his rights, so, if he wants to, he can still drill. That was all done to grandstand in an effort to please out-of-town environmental groups to boost her unsuccessful efforts running for County Supervisor and later, State Assembly. It has also resulted in a lawsuit against the City by the pipeline owner. (See related articles here, here and here)
Overreaction to Text Scandal, Civil Rights Violations by Antioch Police Officers
Wilson served on the Council during the time the racist and offensive texts were being sent be a few Antioch Police officers and received by many more on their personal cell phones, out of reach of both department and city leadership, and she and Torres-Walker served during the time of their revelation and the resulting scandal caused by that and the civil rights violations against Antioch residents and others by our city’s officers. While I believe it was good that two Black women were on the Council during that time to help address a response to the situation, Torres-Walker overreacted by calling for the resignation of all officers named, even those who merely received the texts. That’s being guilty by association and interfering in the process instead of allowing the investigations by the Contra Costa DA’s Office, FBI and California Department of Justice to be completed, first. (See related article)
Turnover in City Leadership Positions & Staff Vacancies – Grand Jury Report
Their decision-making when it came tohiring City leaders has been less than stellar and in fact was the subject of A Report of The 2023 – 2024 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury, number2405, issued June 12, 2024. In that report it outlines three “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch” including, 1. Turnover in city leadership (six permanent or acting City Managers since 2013) which has resulted in an average tenure for Antioch City Managers that is less than half the state average (less than two years vs. 4.5-year average); 2. A city employee vacancy rate that is 4-times the national average (21.6% vs. 5.3%); and 3. Possible Brown Act violations by the Mayor and certain City Council members, as outlined in a letter to Antioch’s Acting City Manager from the Contra Costa District Attorney. (See below)
Wilson was first elected in 2012. Torres-Walker was elected in 2020.
Following Ron Bernal’s announcement he would retire at the end of December 2021, Cornelius “Con” Johnson was hired as Interim City Manager on Nov. 9, 2021, on 3-2 vote with Wilson and Torres-Walker voting in favor.
Then, as previously reported, with only two weeks before that year’s election, during their meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2022, the Antioch City Council on a 3-2 vote, with Wilson and Torres-Walker in the majority, appointed Interim City Manager Cornelius “Con” Johnson as the permanent city manager for another 22 months.
Community Development Director Forrest Ebbs then served as Acting City Manager from March 17 until June 13, 2023, and remained as Community Development Director until July 14, when he left to take another position in a different city.
Economic Development Director Kwame Reed was then appointed Acting City Manager on June 13, 2023, and served in the position until Oct. 2024.
Parks and Recreation Director Brad Helfenberger was then appointed as Interim Assistant City Manager by Reed on June 26, 2023. Senior Planner Kevin Scudero was appointed as Acting Community Development Director, around the same time.
City Manager Bessie M. Scott was hired on August 27, 2024, on another 3-2 vote, with Torres-Walker and Wilson voting in favor and filled the position on Oct. 7th, less than a month before that year’s election when a new mayor and two new council members were elected.
Reed was then promoted to Assistant City Manager by Scott on Jan. 23, 2025, and served in that position until he left for a job with the County Clerk-Recorder’s Office on March 21st.
On April 1, 2025, Helfenberger was again appointed Acting Assistant City Manager, Scott Buenting was named Public Works Director/City Engineer after serving in an acting role for 2.5 years; David Storer was appointed Interim Director of the Community & Economic Development Department, and Shahad Wright was appointed the Acting Parks and Recreation Director. (See related article)
As of May 13, 2025, Antioch was left without an Assistant City Manager or Economic Development Director, and an Acting Police Chief, Acting City Attorney, Acting Community Development Director and Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer. (See related article)
Then Helfenberger was appointed to be the City’s Director of Information Systems effective October 20, 2025, and the Assistant City Manager position has remained vacant since. Interim Director of the Department of Public Safety and Community Resources Monserrat Cabral was appointed Director that same day. Also, that same day, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation Shahad Wright was appointed Director of the Recreation Department. (See related article)
A new Community & Economic Development Director started on Oct. 6, 2025, But was gone by March 3, 2026.
Storer again appointed Interim Community & Economic Development Director but then was let go in May 2026 after Scott was placed on leave and Principal Planning Kevin Scudero was appointed Acting Community & Economic Development Director.
Scott was placed on paid leave May 5, 2026, on a 4-0 vote with Torres-Walker voting to abstain and Human Resources Director Ana Cortez was appointed Acting City Manager effective the next day, also on a 4-0 vote, and was to remain in the position until June 30, 2027. Another person in the HR Dept was appointed the Acting HR Director. The Council also voted not to fill the assistant city manager’s position until sometime in 2027.
However, during their Oct. 7th meeting the Council decided to hire an interim city manager while they search for someone to fill the role permanently.
So, currently, the City has an acting city manager, no assistant city manager and an acting director of Community and Economic Development. But the council did vote in September to reestablish a separate Economic Development Department and create the director position, again, and begin the search process to fill it.
Repeated Deficits, Poor Spending Decisions
The decisions and votes of both councilwomen have helped create the annual deficits the City continues to face. Their repeated votes for all the cannabis businesses, while bringing in one-time funds for the City and local non-profit organizations, have actually hurt the City’s reputation and economic development efforts, and created more calls for service to the police.
They both also voted to shut down the Rivertown Resource Center in the former police station on W. 10th Street, displacing 16 non-profit organizations, for a new department, which the Council on a 3-2 vote agreed to spend $14 million for design and construction of a new, two story building in its place. Later, the Council voted to purchase the two-story former PG&E building on W. 2nd Street at a cost of $1.83 million to house the new department, instead. Yet, the City has not been able to occupy it because the elevator was not compliant with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The W. 10th Street building was going to be sold to the Fire District and has sat vacant, gathering dust and
Although the Council cut spending in the past two budget cycles, the City is still facing an $11.2 million deficit in Fiscal Year 2027-28 even after a $5 million transfer into the General Fund from the Budget Stabilization Fund. (See related articles here, here and here)
Both Voted to Name Crisis Response Team for Angelo Quinto, Give His Family $7.5 Million Despite No Knee to Neck, Wrongdoing by Officers
Both Wilson and Torres-Walker voted to name the City’s crisis response team after Angelo Quinto, a clear slap in the face to the Antioch Police officers who saved his family from him attacking them. It was the family who called the police in the first place. It’s also in spite of the fact the DA cleared Antioch Officers of any wrongdoing, said there had been no knee to his neck by the officers, and Quinto died three days later in the hospital while not in police custody, in spite of the false reports by Bay Area and national media. (See related articles here and here)
The DA reported, “Antioch Police officers engaged with Quinto in a manner that was lawful and objectively reasonable under the circumstances” and “an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea” and “accounts of what transpired in the bedroom are consistent among all witnesses in that no police officer applied pressure to Quinto’s neck.”
Also, the Coroner’s autopsy determined Quinto died of drug intoxication, psychiatric conditions, physical exertion and cardiac arrest and an independent toxicology report found presence of Fentanyl in Quinto’s blood – in addition to Modafinil and Levetiracetam.
“I want to say to the Quinto family, you lost your son, that’s how we got here,” Torres-Walker said. “Your loss has spurred some change, but it didn’t have to happen.”
Both councilwomen voted to create an unnecessary, new City department with a new director, by taking five existing services from other City departments, adding two new services that could have been handled by the police department, and gave it the confusing name, “Department of Public Safety and Community Resources” even though it had nothing to do with police or fire services. The department name was Torres-Walker’s brainchild, who tried to argue, “public safety is a lot more than policing. It’s about quality of life, environmental justice, youth services, housing. Public safety is about economic dignity, access to jobs, clean water, clean air.” It was supposed to be located in the W. 10th Street building.
The department was finally renamed this year to simply, the Community Services Department. But it’s still not needed and the responsibilities can be divided among other City departments to save money which is sorely needed. (See related articles here, here and here)
Voted to Rezone 10 Commercial Properties to Allow Low-Income Apartments
Torres-Walker’s focus has been too much on low-income housing, and her and Wilson’s votes to rezone 10 commercial parcels throughout the city to allow for extremely-low, very-low and low-income apartment units, then later claiming they thought they were voting for mixed use – which was only one of the three options – are unacceptable. Especially, when the state did not require it and worse, one of those projects currently under construction is near the golf course where the residents in the nearby neighborhoods rose up over 20 years ago and successfully defeated a proposed apartment complex across the street. (See related articles here, here and here)
Antioch has more than enough affordable housing and needs upscale housing in its mix, like Brentwood has, to attract seniors and residents with higher incomes who will spend their money in town, shop in our stores and dine in our restaurants, and hopefully, bring their businesses to town to employ our commuting residents. They don’t seem to get that, even though it’s been in the City’s plans for 30 years. We need council members who will support that type of housing instead and I have no doubt both Motts and White will.
Both Voted to Bypass City Manager, Hire Police Chief Directly
During the Council meeting on August 22, 2023, with Torres-Walker and Wilson voting in favor, the Council twice voted 3-2 to directly hire the police chief but delayed implementation of the ordinance for 90 days so the acting city manager could complete the process of hiring an interim chief. Torres-Walker proposed a time limit of possibly one year before the authority would revert back to the city manager which was supported by Wilson. But that wasn’t part of the approved motions.
Both Voted for 18.45% Pay Raise
During their current term, both councilwomen voted to give themselves an 18.45% pay raise during the Council meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 2024. As previously reported, the council approved on a 4-1 vote, with Ogorchock opposing, an 18.45% pay raise or $296, from $1,604 to $1,900 per month, for a total of $22,800 per year, which went into effect after that year’s election. It benefited the two councilwomen, and the new mayor and council members.
Neither Called Out Mayor’s Misbehavior
Plus, both incumbents, while calling out the wrong actions and behavior of Antioch police officers, kept their mouths shut when it came to calling out and challenging Hernandez-Thorpe’s DUI and later sexual harassment of two female employees who worked for him. Motts called for the mayor’s resignation. Instead, when their fellow councilmembers, Ogorchock and Mike Barbanica also called for Hernandez-Thorpe’s resignation, Wilson called it, “racially divisive grandstanding,” even though the County Board of Supervisors voted to settle with the two women for $350,000. (See related articles here, here and here)
Torres-Walker Helped Take Control of Juneteenth Celebration Away from Young African American Woman & Her Committee
As previously reported, in 2022, with a little over two months before the planned and promoted annual Antioch Juneteenth Celebration, Mayor Thorpe, Torres-Walker and Interim City Manager Con Johnson decided to take the event from Claryssa Wilson, the young African-American college student who had organized it for the previous two years and her committee of 11 other African-American Antioch residents, and instead, had the City organize and operate it.
THE UGLY
Corruption: DA Letter on Secret Meetings at Mayor’s House Violating State Open Meeting Law
Some of their actions and decisions have just been plain corrupt.
They were both called out by the District Attorney for holding private meetings at former Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe’s home at which they discussed City business in clear violation of the state’s Brown Act open meeting law. It was later shared by a former friend of the mayor who was also there that they discussed redistricting and moving fellow Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock out of her district and into Wilson’s, which they all three did later in live time during a council meeting.
In a letter from Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton she wrote, “there is evidence that Mayor Thorpe and Councilmembers Torres Walker and Wilson met at Mayor Thorpe’s home in 2022 and held discussions. Furthermore, it appears that the discussions may have included an agreement to take action on matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the council. As defined by Government Code section 54952.6, ‘action taken’ means a collective decision, or even a commitment or promise to make a decision, on a matter concerning the city. Our investigation leads us to believe that Mayor Thorpe and Councilmembers Torres Walker and Wilson did meet and may have developed a collective occurrence absent a public forum. Any similar meeting on matters concerning the city could subject council members to criminal liability.”
In addition, the mayor’s former friend said the meetings occurred and she attended them. Finally, Torres-Walker didn’t deny and Thorpe admitted to participating in the private meetings. (See related article)
More Corruption: Gerrymandered Council District Boundaries to Move Ogorchock into Wilson’s District
Both Torres-Walker and Wilson helped redraw then voted for the new council district boundaries in 2022 to gerrymander Ogorchock out of her district, moving her neighborhood into District 4, forcing the District 3 councilwoman to run for re-election against Wilson.
That’s in spite of two almost identical maps drawn by members of the public having been submitted during the open process in which the Council encouraged the public to draw and submit proposed maps, that would have kept each of the councilmembers in their districts and used major city streets as the boundary lines. (See related article)
While she has mellowed some since first being elected in 2020, Torres-Walker’s rhetoric continues to be radical, has even been racist at times, filled with emotion and anger and even a false allegation of murder by Antioch Police officers. Plus, she disrespects our flag and country by not participating in the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of Council meetings. She merely stands there facing the flag with her hands behind her back. That’s unacceptable for an elected official who took the oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States…against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
During her current term, after being re-elected by just four votes in 2022, Torres-Walker has said some comments that raised eyebrows and had people shaking their heads. One statement was rather revealing when she stated, “I’m a governmental radically deconstructionist,” during the Council meeting on August 22, 2023. But that same night Torres-Walker also falsely and irresponsibly accused Antioch Police officers of murder when she stated, “We’ve been going through a public process for the past 18 months since we found out Angelo Quinto was murdered in his family’s house.”
Said, “City as a Whole” Has a “Deeply Entrenched Racist Culture”,
In a post on her official Facebook page on Thursday, May 18, 2023, Torres-Walker wrote, “My position on this is…an expression of my commitment to not ignore the deeply entrenched racist culture within the Antioch Police Department and the City as a whole.”
Said Fellow Councilwoman Ogorchock Had “White Privilege Fits” and “White Fragility”
During the council meeting on Friday, May 19th, 2023, Torres-Walker said about her council colleague, “last year when Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock had her white privilege fits right here, in this public space, I didn’t say a word. I’m growing tired and I thank God that I have patience because I have seen some growth. But white fragility doesn’t move me at all.” (See related article)
Then, during the most recent regular Council meeting on Oct. 14, 2026, when discussing the proposed “Ethical Investing” policy with “Socially Responsible and Ethical Investment Exclusions” proposed by a small group of activists after meeting with the city treasurer, Torres-Walker took swipes at our nation and its allies.
She also said, “we exist within a genocidal government that invests in the military industrial complex…that also sells weapons to other genocidal governments. It is a conundrum because we’re existing right now on stolen, colonized land.” (See related article)
Torres-Walker Disrespects Our Nation and Flag
At the beginning of Council meetings during the Pledge of Allegiance, instead of placing her hand over her heart and reciting the Pledge, Torres-Walker disrespects the nation and the flag it represents by merely standing there with her hands behind her back. Yet, she’ll post small “Pride” flags on the dais in front of her – in direct violation of the City Flag Policy – and wear a Palestinian keffiyeh neck scarf during council meetings.
Torres-Walker’s Own Run-Ins With the Law, Forced to Resign from Council Committee – Refuses to Release Police Body Cam Footage
Torres-Walker has had her own run-ins with police from her first months in office. That’s when her sons were pulled over for illegally riding dirt bikes on city streets, and she came to their defense but in doing so accused the two officers of wrongdoing and they claim she said, “I’ll have your (expletive) badge. Do you know who I am?” They in turn sued her.
She demanded an outside investigator which cost the City $45,000 and the report showed all her claims were “unfounded” or “not sustained”. There were two outside investigations with the second into Torres-Walker at the request of the Antioch Police Officers Association. Then-City Manager Ron Bernal both contracted for and stopped the second one. (See related articles here and here)
Then in October of 2021, when confronted by police at her home about noise complaints including dirt bikes riding in the street, loud music and five or six gunshots, Torres-Walker was arrested for interfering with police who were trying to question another woman there. It was just one of eight incidents at her home that resulted in 11 calls for police service. She claimed police were targeting her family, which they denied.
Under pressure from her fellow council members, a few days later, she stepped down as Chair of the Council’s Antioch Police Oversight Committee. But before she did, Torres-Walker claimed, “negative and retaliatory behaviors from APD.”
The councilwoman was charged with a misdemeanor for resisting, obstructing, delaying of a Peace Officer or EMT.
Finally, in September 2022, the DA dropped the charges against the councilwoman. That followed a contributed $500 contribution by Torres-Walker to Becton’s reelection campaign. Becton said she later returned the contribution.
Multiple efforts were made to request APD to release the officer’s body camera video footage, and both of her opponents in the 2022 election, including Motts, called for it, as well. But neither Torres-Walker nor the police department will release the footage so the public can see, hear and know what occurred in front of her house that night, claiming it’s “privileged”. That’s not right. They shouldn’t be protecting a sitting council member, and she should be more transparent with the public, even if it’s embarrassing and costs her politically.
Arrogance in Office: Both Refuse to Answer Questions, Respond to Phone Calls, Texts, Emails
Another pet peeve for me is, both have demonstrated arrogance in office as only once in the past several years has either of them responded to my emails, texts and phone calls, which is a sign they don’t think they have to answer questions posed to them by the media to inform the public and don’t like being challenged. Most of the time they were included in group emails to all council members and given the opportunity to comment about a matter.
While I see and speak to her periodically in the community and Wilson and I are cordial with each other, they rarely if ever communicate with me about City issues, which is frustrating.
Torres-Walker only responded recently to answer questions and provide information about the sale of El Campanil Theatre and her unsuccessful efforts to get the City to purchase it. But since then, crickets. Also, Wilson is the only one who was either on the council or on City staff at the time it was first in the process of being sold in 2022 and 2023 to not tell the public what she knew about it. I offered her the opportunity to not respond directly to my questions but post her answers on her official Facebook page which she still hasn’t done.
Torres-Walker once complained to me in early 2022 via text in response to questions about the lawsuit against the City and her by the two officers involved in the incident with her sons back in 2020, claiming I was using her “family for click bait” and that I “fan the flames of misinformation” although I merely reported what was claimed in the lawsuit and gave her the chance to offer her side of the matter. She finished with, “Here is where we part ways and it wasn’t for a lack of trying.”
If you’re going to be an elected official, at times you’re going to be asked tough questions that are not comfortable to keep the public informed. She is the one who made the incident with her sons go public by complaining they were mistreated by the two officers, resulting in the lawsuit. As the old saying goes, don’t shoot the messenger, especially for doing my job and merely asking questions and reporting what people write, do and say, especially elected officials.
Torres-Walker and Wilson Have Worn Out Their Welcome on the Council
On the positive side, I’ve had the opportunity to interact and get to know Torres-Walker, off the dais, and I, frankly, like and find her, fun to be around. Plus, she’s been more involved in the community in the past year, specifically with the Rivertown area and the new Downtown Antioch Association, specifically, working to help the businesses with private security to supplement police efforts. But she still rarely attends any Rivertown events while her opponent does.
Yet, while I believe Torres-Walker is well intentioned, has been a leader for the causes she’s championed, has grown in the position and matured as an individual, is less strident than when she first began and represents a constituency in Antioch, she still says crazy and radical things during what I’ve labeled her “diatribes from the dais”, and does things that are embarrassing and unbecoming of an elected representative.
So, I believe her time for her service in the position on the Council has come to an end. As Esther in the Bible who was in place as the queen, “for such a time as this,” to get the king to save her people, I believe Tamisha has fulfilled her role, has completed her task and it’s time for someone else with a different viewpoint focused on the future to step in to represent District 1 and all of Antioch. Should she lose, Torres-Walker can spend more time working on her worthwhile non-profit organization in Richmond.
For Wilson, whose 14 years have been way too much time for her decision-making negatively affecting our community, her time on the Council has also come to an end – especially, now that the City has been released from the U.S Department of Justice’s agreement regarding the Antioch Police Department, which Torres-Walker applauded. (See related articles here and here)
So, while some good has been accomplished, the bottom line is the bad and the ugly far outweigh it and the result is Torres-Walker and Wilson have worn out their welcome on the Council.
Time for Renewed & New Leadership on the City Council
Instead, it’s time for renewed and new leadership on the Antioch City Council. Motts brings renewed leadership having served previously on both the Antioch School Board in 2010-14 and on the City Council in 2018-20 and White brings new leadership with some City government experience having served as Chair of the Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commission, helping organize Neighborhood Watch and Business Alert programs, before it was disbanded so the Antioch Police Oversight Commission could be formed.
Torres-Walker defeated Motts in 2020 receiving only 36.2% of the vote with a third candidate in the race. Then Motts challenged her in 2022, and with a third candidate in the race, again, Motts lost by just three votes on Election Day. But following a costly recount, Motts ended up losing by four votes but Torres-Walker received only 34.4% of the vote meaning 65.6% of the voters wanted someone else to represent them. With no other candidate in the race this year, the one-on-one competition should prove more favorable for Motts. But she believes it will be close, either way.
For full disclosure, I helped raise funds to pay for her costly recount in 2022.
I’ve also worked with Joy multiple times to promote all the various events of the Celebrate Antioch Foundation, since the beginning when we helped form the organization, for which she has been serving as president since 2010.
In her role with Celebrate Antioch, Motts helped organize the City’s Sesquicentennial 150th Anniversary of Cityhood Celebration in 2022 with a year’s long of events and activities. While some complained she and the other two leaders of the organization were paid by the City for their work, it was a total of $25,000 split amongst them, which is a pittance for the amount of time they put in.
Motts has championed the Rivertown Square project on the former Antioch Lumber Company lot in downtown which, if built, it would be in place of the large, Barbara Price Marina Park that was removed years ago when the new Marina Boat Launch and parking lot were built. Unfortunately, the Council, including Torres-Walker and Wilson, after having voted for the project in 2021 and to hire a firm to design it, then City staff held community meetings for public input on the design, the councilwomen voted against pursuing state grant funds for it, this year. Wilson had also previously voted to allow for the park and event center there in June 2015, but just two months later she flip-flopped and voted to sell the lot to a private developer. Fortunately, that never transpired.
In general, I agree with Motts on many if not most issues, but not everything. The one major issue I remember having a challenge with her previously, was Motts’ vote in 2020, along with Wilson and Thorpe, to postpone indefinitely the proposed project by Gabriel Chiu, known as the Delta Fair Village, which included apartments and commercial space on Delta Fair Blvd. where the FoodMaxx store was previously located. Their issue was he hadn’t been keeping that or his other commercial properties in the city cleaned up. I believe she should have voted for the project with the condition Chiu clean up his properties before a building permit would be issued for the new development. Instead, they lost all of their leverage and still nothing has happened with the property, although plans have been submitted to the City.
Motts was a leader on dealing with the City’s homeless problem and instrumental in the establishment of the Opportunity Village homeless hotel on E. 18th Street, the City’s first major effort to address the issue. She was one of the three council members who first voted to advance the transitional housing project. (See related articles here and here)
White first ran for City Council in 2020 in a three-candidate race but lost to Wilson by a little more than two-to-one. She ran again in 2022 in a four-candidate race which included both Wilson and Ogorchock but placed fourth. As they say, third time is a charm and although this year there are also four candidates in the race, including homeless and affordable housing advocate Andrew Becker, who is a regular at council meetings speaking on a variety of issues and newcomer Matty Alappat, I’m hoping that’s the case and believe Sandra has a better shot at winning, especially with the baggage Wilson is carrying.
On a side note, my encouragement to Andrew is to continue doing his detailed research, speaking out on the issues and challenging both the council members and City staff. But as I’ve told him directly, he needs to temper his tone if he wants to be more effective in winning them over to his side. For Matty, who I have yet to meet but have spoken to and believe she’s quite sharp, I encourage her to apply for a commission appointment to get more knowledge about Antioch and some experience serving the community before seeking office, again.
I believe White is the best choice of the three challengers in this year’s District 4 race as she has also proven herself through community service and leadership as a Board Member of the Antioch Schools Education Foundation and Delta Learning Center and as a former President of the Antioch Rotary Club.
White will bring common sense to the City Council, plus, leadership experience in management in the private sector from her job which, according to her LinkedIn profile, is as the Vice President of Human Resources for the Center for Social Dynamics. According to their website, the California-based corporation with locations in seven other states, “helps individuals and families navigating autism and other behavioral conditions make meaningful progress through personalized, research-backed ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) therapy.”
Also, White offers fiscal responsibility and will focus on her priorities of Economic Development, Public Safety, Responsible Support for the Unhoused – which are all sorely needed in Antioch – plus, Community Partnerships & Accountability.
But one challenge I have with White, unlike Motts and Becker, is she takes too long to respond to phone calls, texts and emails which is very frustrating. She will need to work on improving in that area if she’s elected.
Finally, both Motts and White have the right temperament, the commitment to all of Antioch and the heart to serve us well in the position and they also will represent our city both locally and regionally in a positive, respectful way.
For renewed and new leadership on the Antioch City Council please join me in choosing Joy Motts and Sandra White for election.
28 charged in statewide Operation Protect the Vote, five in Bay Area
By Ciaran McEvoy, PIO, U.S. Attorney’s Office Central District of California
LOS ANGELES – Federal law enforcement throughout California today arrested 11 foreign nationals living in the United States who are charged in criminal complaints with federal crimes, including that they fraudulently registered to vote in U.S. elections, electoral contests in which most of them cast illegal and fraudulently obtained ballots.
A total of 28 people were charged statewide, 21 who actually voted in elections and 11 were arrested today. Law enforcement is seeking the other individuals or they have been summoned.
Source: republicanpollworkers.com
Today’s arrests are part of “Operation Protect the Vote” – a coordinated effort among all four California-based United States Attorney’s Offices to combat and root out fraud in U.S. elections and protect electoral integrity.
All 28 foreign nationals charged are lawful permanent residents (LPRs), or “green card” holders. Although LPRs have legal immigration status in the United States, they are not U.S. citizens and are not permitted to vote in U.S. elections.
The criminal charges include making false statements in a naturalization application and some of the defendants also are charged with fraudulent voter registration. Both charges are felonies that carry a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison.
The defendants arrested today are expected to make their initial appearances this afternoon in U.S. District Court. No pleas will be taken today.
On October 13, the federal government provided a list of these individuals to California to ensure that their vote-by-mail ballots were set aside until these individuals’ citizenship status could be confirmed. California declined to assist the federal government in setting aside their ballots, prompting a lawsuit by the United States that seeks a court order to prevent the unlawful dilution of American citizens’ votes and to uphold the integrity of our elections.
“Every illegal vote cancels out the vote of a lawful American citizen,” said Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter. “Each of the 28 defendants charged today appears on the list of more than 20,000 likely noncitizen registrants we provided to California election officials last week. California refused to look at that list. Today’s charges show exactly what that refusal puts at risk. California must verify the citizenship of those more than 20,000 registrants before mail-in ballots are counted.”
“Today’s arrests prove what we have been saying,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli. “California is mailing ballots to noncitizens, and they are refusing to comply with federal law, which makes it a crime for noncitizens to vote. The voting rights of American citizens must be protected.”
“Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) is committed to protecting the integrity of our nation’s electoral process by investigating allegations of criminal conduct that undermine public confidence in our elections,” said HSI Acting Executive Associate Director John A. Condon. “Working with our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners, we will continue to pursue those who knowingly violate federal law, while ensuring that every investigation is conducted fairly, thoroughly, and consistent with due process.”
According to court documents, the defendants knowingly and willfully lied under oath in their voter registration applications that they were U.S. citizens to be permitted to vote in California. Their fraudulent voter registration applications were approved, and, in many cases, the defendants illegally voted in recent U.S. elections. They subsequently lied in their paperwork to become naturalized U.S. citizens that they had never claimed U.S. citizenship, nor had they registered to vote or voted in U.S. elections.
Broken down by jurisdiction, the following defendants are charged in today’s takedown:
Central District of California
All the following defendants below in this jurisdiction face felony charges, including false statements in a naturalization application:
Omar Alexander Muñoz, 72, a Belizean national living in Commerce, fraudulently registered to vote in September 2019, claiming his was a U.S. citizen, then voted in U.S. elections in 2020, twice in 2022, and in 2024. He also lied on his application to become a naturalized U.S. citizen when he falsely stated under oath to have never claimed to be a U.S. citizen.
Amandeep Kaur, 30, an Indian national living in Rancho Palos Verdes and who is seeking to become a U.S. citizen, fraudulently registered to vote in December 2022 and voted in the November 2024 U.S. election.
Ana Domínguez, 60, a Salvadoran national living in Long Beach, fraudulently registered to vote in July 2006 and lied in her naturalization paperwork in March 2026.
Axel Giovani Prera García, 46, a Guatemalan national and Pico Rivera resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2002 and 2005, and lied in his naturalization paperwork in June 2025.
Flavio Alejandro Zúñiga, 43, a Mexico national and La Puente resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2003 and lied in his naturalization paperwork in February 2026.
Butleng Taing, 43, a Cambodian national living in Long Beach, fraudulently registered to vote in July 2021, voted in the 2022 and 2024 U.S. elections, and lied on his naturalization paperwork in August 2025.
Carlos Antonio Galeas, 54, a Honduran national and West Covina resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2012 and 2016, then lied in his naturalization paperwork in September 2018.
Ernest Gutiérrez Ruvalcaba, 57, a Mexican national living in Wilmington, fraudulently registered to vote in February 2024 and voted one month later.
Jesús Narez-Madrigal, 52, a Mexican national living in Carson, fraudulently registered to vote in 2014, voted in the 2024 U.S. general election, and lied in his naturalization paperwork in June 2024.
José Antonio Bañuelos-Díaz, 42, a Mexican national and West Adams resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2007 and lied on his naturalization paperwork in March 2025.
Muhammad Khan, 50, a Pakistani national and Anaheim resident, submitted a provisional ballot in 2020 and lied on his naturalization paperwork five years later.
Rouzbeh Seyamaknejad, 63, a Canadian national and Rancho Palos Verdes resident, fraudulently registered to vote in December 2018, lied in his naturalization application in January 2024, and voted in the November 2024 U.S. election.
Sulema de León, 35, a Mexican national and Long Beach resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2013, lied on her naturalization application in 2019, and voted in the November 2020 U.S. general election.
Eastern District of California
The following defendants are charged with voting by an alien in a federal election, a misdemeanor that carries a statutory maximum sentence of one year in federal prison:
Maricela Nazarín González, 43, a Mexican national living in Clovis, registered to vote in 2020, indicating that she was a U.S. citizen, and voted in elections in 2022, twice in 2024, and 2025.
Rony de Jesús Sicaja, 38, a Guatemalan national living in Fresno, fraudulently registered to vote in 2017, and voted in the June 2022 primary election and the November 2024 general election in the United States.
Camino Giles Jiménez, 51, a Mexican national living in Kerman, knowingly voted in three U.S. elections despite knowing he is a noncitizen, the most recent election being the June 2026 primary.
Juan Antonio Rivas García, 46, a Mexican national and Sacramento resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2018 and 2020, both times falsely asserting under oath that he was a U.S. citizen. Rivas voted in the 2022 and 2024 U.S. elections.
Giezell Viduya Adawag, 41, a Philippines national and Vacaville resident, fraudulently registered to vote the day of the November 2024 general election, falsely certified that she was a U.S. citizen, and voted in the election that day.
Kamlesh Navnitlal Shah, 67, an Indian national living in Sacramento, fraudulently registered to vote on the day of the November 2024 general election and voted that day. He is charged via information.
Northern District of California
The following defendants are charged with attempted procurement of naturalization contrary to law, false statement under oath in any matter relating to naturalization or citizenship, and voting by an alien:
Verónica Bullene, 43, a.k.a. “Verónica Hernández Martínez,” a Mexican national living in Petaluma, made false statements on her naturalization application that she had never claimed to be a U.S. citizen when, in fact, she did so under penalty of perjury to register to vote in 2022 and 2023 then voted in 2024.
David Shapiro, 41, a Georgian national living in San Jose, fraudulently registered to vote in 2024 and later voted in a U.S. election, and made false statements on his naturalization application that he had never claimed to be a U.S. citizen.
Moe Thida Lwin, 57, a Myanmar national and Daly City resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2024 and then proceeded to illegally vote in a U.S. citizen. She made false statements on her naturalization paperwork as well.
Manakotau Mataele Finau, 61, a Tongan national and Hayward resident, fraudulently registered to vote in the 2024 election then vote, then lied about it in naturalization paperwork.
Maribel del Carmen Garcés Barriga, 62, an Ecuadoran national and San Francisco resident, made false statements in her naturalization paperwork that she never claimed U.S. citizenship and had never voted in a U.S. election or had registered to vote. In fact, Garcés fraudulently registered to vote in 2024 and proceeded to vote in a U.S. election.
Southern District of California
The following defendants are charged with false claim to citizenship to vote, unlawful attempted procurement of naturalization, and false statement under oath in matter relating to naturalization or citizenship:
José Probitsado Amaro, 51, a citizen of the Philippines living in National City, fraudulently registered to vote by falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen. He then cast a ballot in the November 2024 general election and made false statements during his naturalization interview, denying that he had ever claimed U.S. citizenship and misrepresenting his voting history.
Jennifer Jung, 31, a Canadian national living in San Diego, fraudulently registered to vote by falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen. She then cast a ballot in the November 2024 general election and made false statements during her naturalization interview, denying that she had ever claimed U.S. citizenship and misrepresenting her voting history.
Erick Ronaldo Soto Mendizábal, 64, a citizen of Guatemala and former Oceanside resident now living in Moreno Valley, fraudulently registered to vote by falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen. He then cast a ballot in the November 2024 general election and made false statements in his naturalization application, denying that he had ever claimed U.S. citizenship and misrepresenting his voting history.
Pamele Arbués Line, 56, a citizen of the Philippines living in Escondido, registered to vote, cast a ballot in the November 2024 general election, and made false statements in her naturalization interview, denying that she had ever claimed U.S. citizenship and misrepresenting her voting history.
Criminal complaints and informations merely contain allegations. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) is investigating these matters in the Central District of California. HSI and the FBI are investigating these matters in the Eastern and Northern Districts of California. HSI, the FBI, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are investigating the matters in the Southern District of California.
Assistant United States Attorneys Michael Wheat and Minjae Kim of the Orange County Office are prosecuting the Central District of California cases. Assistant United States Attorneys Kevin Khasigian and Joshua Banister are prosecuting the Eastern District of California cases. Special Assistant United States Attorney Roger Dinh is prosecuting the Northern District of California cases.
Incumbent Colin Coffey is facing challenger Inderprit Sekhon in this year’s East Bay Regional Park District Ward 7 race. Photos: EBRPD and LinkedIn
Colin Coffey’s challenger, Inderprit “Indy Rishi Singh” Sekhon, wants “to promote and educate about ecological medicine” and “dance for office instead”while the incumbent touts his accomplishments and plans
By Allen D. Payton
Running for a third four-year term as a Director on the East Bay Regional Parks District in Ward 7, Colin Coffey faces a unique candidate, Inderprit “Indy Rishi Singh” Sekhon, who is running a different campaign while dancing to a different tune and offering an alternative focus and approach to the position. Ward 7 includes the northern waterfront portion of Contra Costa County from Pinole and Hercules in the west to the eastern county line north of Discovery Bay. (See map and below)
Cities and Communities in Ward 7 include: A portion of Alhambra Valley south of Martinez, Antioch, Bay Point, Bethel Island, Brentwood, Clyde, Crockett, Hercules, Knightsen, Martinez, and the adjacent Mountain View on the east side, Oakley, Pacheco, Pittsburg, Port Costa, Rodeo and Vine Hill between Martinez and Pacheco.
The Regional Parks in Ward 7 include: Antioch/Oakley Regional Shoreline, Bay Point Regional Shoreline, Big Break Regional Shoreline in Oakley, Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve in Antioch, Briones Regional Park west of Pleasant Hill, Browns Island Regional Preserve north of Pittsburg, Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline, Clayton Ranch Regional Preserve, Contra Loma Regional Park in Antioch, Crockett Hills Regional Park, Delta Access Regional Recreation Area north of Discovery Bay, Radke Martinez Regional Shoreline in Martinez, Rancho Pinole Regional Preserve east of Pinole, San Pablo Bay Regional Shoreline, and the Waterbird Regional Preserve/McNabney Marsh near Martinez.
Asked why Rancho Pinole doesn’t appear in the list of parks on the District’s website, Coffey shared, “Rancho Pinole lands in a section of the 2013 Master Plan that will be a regional park. It’s not currently operated by the District, but by the John Muir Land Trust. It includes Fernandez Ranch, about 1,000 acres, also includes the Franklin Canyon Ranch, surrounding the golf course. It totals about 2,000 acres so far. The Park District has partial ownership interest in Fernandez Ranch. The plans show someday it will all be converted to an East Bay Regional Park District park.”
Also, Deer Valley Regional Park south of Antioch, which includes the former Roddy Ranch Golf Course “is being returned to its original natural habitat. They’re ripping up the golf course paths as they’re not suitable for hiking,” he continued. “We recently acquired more land on Briones Valley Road near Brentwood. It will possibly break ground early next year. Within a year it’s possible we’ll open to the public. We already have a parking lot there, which really helps. We’re doing public programming there, already.”
East Bay Regional Park District Ward 7 boundary map. Source: EBRPD
About Coffey
According to his bio on the East Bay Regional Parks District website, retired attorney Coffey is a resident of Hercules and “was appointed to the Board in January 2017. Previously, he served on the Park District’s Park Advisory Committee twice, first appointed by former EBRPD Director Ted Radke from 2001-2009 and appointed by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors from 2012- 2017. He has also been a volunteer Ambassador for the parks for 19 years. He is a longtime supporter of the John Muir Land Trust and a member of the Regional Parks Foundation.
“Director Coffey is a retired partner with the (law) firm Best, Best & Krieger in Walnut Creek. Director Coffey is a public health attorney, representing public and nonprofit healthcare providers. He is a past president of the Contra Costa Bar Association. Director Coffey is married, has two children and resides in Hercules. He is a lifelong resident of Contra Costa County.”
According to his campaign website, Coffey “was elected to the Board in 2018 and re-elected in 2022. He was a public health attorney, representing public and nonprofit healthcare providers and is a past president of the Contra Costa BAR association.
“Coffey’s family was politically active, and he served as an intern in then-Congressman George Miller’s Washington, DC office in his youth and later was the Congressman’s appointee to the Democratic Central Committee for 23 years.
“Coffey, his wife Mila and their two adult children are life-long parks and trails enthusiasts.”
His campaign is focused on the following issues: “Preservation of New Open Space and Wildlife Habitat / Aggressive Pursuit of Wildfire Risk Reduction / Enhanced Public Safety in the Parks; New Open Spaces; and Wildfire Mitigation.”
Coffey offers a long list of his accomplishments while in office under the categories of Leadership, Preservation of Open Space and Wildlife Habitat or Restoration of Natural Areas and Excellence in Programs and Policies.
He also shares under “Looking Forward – If Re-elected:” that fact that in “2027 I will be President of the Board and working with our new GM Max Korten. This will represent a huge opportunity for North and East Contra Costa input into open space preservation and wildlife habitat preservation. I will help complete a new 10 year Master Plan, highlighting future preservation of open space and wildlife habitat, more ways to enjoy open space, and continued focus on wildfire risk reduction.” Plus, other projects such as, “Extend the Marsh Creak Regional Trail to Dutch Slough on the North and to Round Valley Regional Park on the South” and “Build the proposed Delta Bay Trail from Bay Point to Antioch/Oakley and beyond,” and “Repairing and funding Hazel Atlas Mine and Great House Visitor Center to keep consistently open,” in East County.
Plus, “Rancho Pinole acquisitions and regional park development in partnership with JMLT (John Muir Land Trust) to create a future large regional park in the Hercules and Pinole area” and “Support Rodeo Community Association campaign to have EBRPD expand Lone Tree Point Park and clean up contaminated land in the area. Incorporate Greenway Vision for Rodeo shoreline into Master Plan” in West County.
About Inderprit “Indy Rishi Singh” Sekhon
According to the campaign website for Crockett resident Inderprit “Indy Rishi Singh” Sekhon, he “is a regenerative farmer, community organizer and systems thinker. His work focuses on the relationship between personal health, community wellbeing and the health of the land. He is running because he believes the Park District can build on its legacy of land protection and become a more active partner in public health, climate resilience, ecological restoration and community stewardship. His question is straightforward: How can the land we have already protected do more good for the people and places around it?”
In a post in August on his LinkedIn profile page, Sekhon wrote, “I’m on the California ballot as Inderprit Sekhon (government name). Check out what East Bay Regional Park District does and get involved with our campaign. We are seeking to collaborate with healers, artists, educators, ecological stewards, farmers, and anyone who feels like their skills/ideas are important, but not valued enough by government or current economic systems. Learn more about my intention to promote and educate about ecological medicine,” with a link to the website for his non-profit organization named Cultivating Self.
In that same LinkedIn post is a video which he says, “I don’t know why I’m doing this. But I’m running for office this fall. But, yeah, maybe I do know why I’m doing this. But I also feel it’s good to not know why I’m doing this,” with a laugh. “How can an organization with so much money and have so many resources how can it be a resource for the community, an asset for the community…how can that be part of our preventative, ecological medicine? That’s why I’m doing this. I don’t even know why and also, I do know that we need to do something…”
Then, in a post on Friday, Sept. 18, Sekhon wrote, “What if a neurodivergent Generalist ran for office? What if he decides to dance for office instead? find out what’s possible: https://lnkd.in/gsQVRw8h.”
That takes you to his campaign website where it shares his slogan, “Healthy land. Healthy people. Public money that works.” He writes, “The District has spent generations protecting land. Indy’s campaign asks how that protected land can more fully sustain the people and communities around it,” and his platform is to “Protect. Connect. Deliver.”
Under “Protect” Sekhon writes, “Care for the land before the emergency.Keep land, water, roads, trails and fire-prone landscapes healthy and safe — with maintenance and ecological stewardship matched to the places the District manages,” and lists “Wildfire resilience, Wetlands and shorelines, and Healthy soil and habitat.”
Under “Connect” he writes, “Make parks work for more people.Treat parks as public-health and belonging infrastructure, with better access, locally relevant programming and meaningful ways for residents to participate,” and lists, “Health and wellbeing, Transit and first-visit access, and Youth and paid stewardship.”
Finally, under “Deliver” Sekhon wants to, “Make public money produce visible results.Modernize field systems, publish priorities and costs, and make it easier to see what is being fixed, restored and improved,” and lists, “Transparent priorities, Modern field tools and Measurable outcomes.”
The first-time candidate also offers what he calls his Donut Vision 2036, of “A safe and thriving place for people and planet,” and writes, “Doughnut Economics asks how we meet more human needs without damaging the living systems we depend on. Indy’s 2036 vision applies that question to Ward 7’s parks and communities.”
Under the subheading, “People thrive” Sekhon shares about “Health, Food, Youth and Access,” and under the subheading, “Nature thrives” he writes about “Fire resilience, Shorelines, Biodiversity and Circular systems,” specifically, “Turn organic material back into useful ecological value.”
Sekhon also writes, “The theory of change: If we invest in parks as infrastructure for both people and planet, healthier land can support healthier communities, healthier communities can become stronger stewards, and accountable public systems can reinforce both.”
He then offers what the future will look like by following his vision, writing, “Ward 7, 2036. See the place. Imagine the next chapter.” Sekhon offers six parts to his vision: “The Shoreline We Can Restore, The Park That Heals, The Park That Feeds, The Park That Creates Work, The Government You Can See, and The Land We Care for Before Crisis.”
Under “Public money that works – You should be able to see what your Park District is doing,” Sekhon writes, “The argument is not that every public dollar is discretionary. It is that a large public institution should make its priorities, costs and results understandable.”
He includes eight focus areas: “Maintenance response & repair times; Trail & facility condition over time; Wildfire hazards treated & acres restored; Water quality & ecological outcomes; Residents reached; Local organizations contracted; Ward 7 investment; and Project costs, owners & timelines.”
Under “Heartstorming Ward 7 Listening that leads somewhere” Sekhon explains, “Most public engagement begins with a survey. Heartstorming begins with a place, a conversation and a practical question: What would help your community thrive here?” He lists five tasks to accomplish it: “1 Experience the place, 2 Share what you see and need, 3 Imagine what could change, 4 Connect ideas to policy and action, and 5 Invite people back into the work.”
Finally, Sekhon offers, “Plain-language FAQ What does this mean?” and asks and answers four questions: “Why call it ‘Doughnut Vision’? The doughnut is a simple model: make sure people can thrive while keeping ecological systems healthy. The campaign uses it as a long-horizon method, not as a prerequisite for understanding the platform.”
He continues, “Is every 2036 idea already an official Park District program? No. The site distinguishes campaign proposals and future concepts from existing District programs. Partnerships are not implied until they are actually established.”
Recognizing his limitations as only one of seven board members Sekhon writes, “What does one Park District director control? One director does not control the District alone. Indy would need to build public support and Board support for pilots, policies and investments.”
Finally, the challenger asks, “Why focus on public systems?” His answer is, “Maintenance, ecological care, field data and capital decisions are connected. Better information and clearer priorities can help staff, the Board and residents understand what needs attention and what progress looks like.”
Sekhon then invites voters to “Help shape Ward 7’s next decade. Vote. Volunteer. Share a park story. Come to a Heartstorming event. Help turn a long-horizon vision into practical work.”
AUSD is at a crisis point. This is no time to elect someone without the experience, financial or otherwise, to keep the district afloat while critical decisions are being made.
Mary Rocha voted:
• No on hiring the current embattled superintendent,
• No on salary increases without budget impact information,
• No on mass layoffs, without Explanation on how students would still be served with less staff.
Mary has pressed the superintendent to focus on students, parents, and the community, and she has been the voice of reason while the superintendent provided little to no information about the current fiscal crisis
Experience matters. Mary has served on the board since 2018 and is the only trustee who brings experience and institutional understanding to the table. Two members (Cabos Smith and Brown) are in their first term. The current board president (Jag) is not running again and will be replaced in December by a new board member (Reese). The immediate past president (Hernandez) is in his sixth year, however he spent those years pursuing graduate work at Stanford and Davis toward becoming a physician, and in my view gives minimal attention to his role as trustee.
The political practice of districting, implemented in 2022, brought four new members to the board who lacked the experience to make decisions with long-term consequences.
It was not always this way. Before districting, the board was made up of trustees with varied backgrounds and focus. Gary Hack, a former teacher and AEA president, brought understanding of and advocacy for employees. Claire Smith, who had children in the district for many years, was the voice of parents, families, and students. As a former corporate director and nonprofit executive director, I spent my 12 years focused on contracts and fiscal solvency. A diverse board with diverse opinions has always served this district best.
The results of the current board’s decisions are clear:
The superintendent’s hiring. She was hired by a 4-1 vote without fully vetting her background. A simple Google search shows she left Sequoia Union High School District in December 2022 with a $299,000 severance package under a mutual separation agreement, and that her later tenure at Pacifica School District drew backlash over budget deficits and job cuts. Her contract gave her the same number of workdays as a principal, which is unheard of. A new salary scale was created for her, far above those of former superintendents. A $12,000 relocation package was included, and the reimbursements approved only by the board president at the time (Hernandez) are questionable.
Raises for all. The board approval was 4-1 based on a positive certification reported in 2025–26 First Interim Report (December 2025), which should have begun with “once upon a time…
Layoffs. After a deficit of more than $30 million was uncovered, layoffs were made without a solid plan from the superintendent. The scattershot approach, meant to save $18 million, did little to achieve fiscal solvency, and more layoffs are coming.
Special education. The department was reorganized to save $600,000. Directors were combined, left for other districts, or not rehired. That decision gutted the department and leaves the district open to lawsuits, as students may not be receiving their IEP-mandated services.
Today, the district faces a serious deficit, superintendent is on paid administrative leave and has filed a lawsuit naming AUSD, Mary Rocha as an individual, and Unnamed Individuals 1 through 50. In my opinion, that suit is a strategy to secure another package to quietly go away, as she did at Sequoia.
Antioch has faced a number of challenges over the past year—from legal threats by housing developers to unpaid fuel bills, cuts to critical services, vacant commercial properties, a water park that was left closed all summer, and the loss of the El Campanil Theatre. More than ever, the city needs bold leaders who are capable of seeing things as they really are, thinking clearly, and taking decisive action.
In the District 1 council race, only one candidate has those qualities—and it’s not former Antioch councilwoman Joy Motts.
Joy has deep roots and strong ties in the community. Her passion for Antioch and nonprofit work as president of the Celebrate Antioch Foundation, which puts on the city’s Fourth of July Celebration, are commendable. But her track record as an elected official says something different.
Between 2010 and 2014, when Joy served on the Antioch Unified School District Board of Trustees, the district was operating under a 2009 settlement with the ACLU over discriminatory disciplinary practices against students of color. Joy left the board in 2014 with the problem unresolved—in fact, district data showed Black students were suspended more than 2,700 times during the 2013-14 school year compared with 430 white students, according to a report in the East Bay Times. The East County NAACP would later sue the district over similar issues.
In April 2013, when Joy was board president, the families of several special education kindergartners filed a federal lawsuit against the district, alleging a teacher slapped, pinched and verbally abused their children at Mno Grant Elementary and that the district failed to report the abuse to police or Child Protective Services. Trustees voted to pay $8 million to settle the case.
Joy lost reelection to the school board in 2014, ran again in 2016, and lost that race as well. Then in 2018, she was elected to the Antioch City Council.
On June 18, 2020, in the wake of George Floyd’s murder at the hands of Minneapolis police, the city council held special meetings to decide whether to create an ad hoc committee on police reform. The need was obvious, as the Antioch Police Department did not use body cameras, had no formal policy for reviewing deadly use-of-force incidents, and had already settled several costly lawsuits involving in-custody deaths.
After testimony from 700 Antioch residents, some of whom had personally experienced racism and mistreatment by Antioch police, Joy voted against police reform, opting instead for a series of town halls that went nowhere. That decision would have profound consequences on Antioch taxpayers and the city’s reputation.
Four days after Joy’s vote, on June 22, 2020, APD officer Eric Rombough sent a photo on his phone depicting a large naked Black man with his penis exposed sitting on the neck of George Floyd. That text was one of many later uncovered by a Contra Costa District Attorney’s investigation, which showed that dozens of Antioch police officers had exchanged racist and homophobic messages and that some had admitted committing crimes against people of color, including K-9 attacks.
The texting scandal led to the convictions and prison sentences of several Antioch police officers, federal oversight by the U.S. Department of Justice, and $4.6 million paid to settle civil rights claims filed against the city by 23 victims of police misconduct.
Six months after Joy’s vote, four cops showed up to the home of Navy veteran Angelo Quinto, who was experiencing a mental health crisis. One officer knelt on his neck, leading to his death three days later and ultimately a $7.5 million settlement with the city.
It was left to the new city council majority to clean up a mess that made national headlines—a mess that many in the community saw coming, but not Joy.
The progress Antioch has made since then is now in jeopardy. Mayor Ron Bernal—who as city manager was responsible for overseeing the police department when officers were committing crimes against Antioch residents—has already tried to put the Antioch Police Oversight Commission on hold. Meanwhile, the Angelo Quinto Community Response Team, established to prevent another senseless killing, has seen its hours reduced from 24/7 to 12 hours a day, which could place other lives at risk.
The mayor and his deep-pocketed friends are now vigorously supporting Joy’s campaign because they want a rubber-stamp council. But what they want is not what Antioch needs. The city needs leaders who are capable of collaborating, but who are also ready to stand up and fight for those who don’t have a seat at the table and keep the city out of legal jeopardy.
District 1 already has such a leader in Tamisha Torres-Walker.
Tamisha not only supported the creation of the Angelo Quinto Community Response Team, but also the creation of the Antioch Police Oversight Commission, the city’s first civilian police oversight body, and helped advance body cameras for officers and other critical police reforms.
Tamisha fought to bring in over $10 million in outside funding to the Department of Community Resources, including grants to support gun violence prevention and the city’s paid internship program for young adults. She also championed a $34.9 million grant for permanent supportive housing for the city’s unhoused residents and the creation of the Sycamore Square police substation.
And when it was discovered that Antioch had the highest tenant eviction rates during the pandemic, Tamisha supported ordinances to stabilize rents, protect tenants from landlord harassment, and require just cause evictions. She is now pushing for a vacancy tax to hold absentee property owners accountable and reduce blight.
Too often, voters in cities like Antioch choose candidates who know how to get elected but don’t know how to lead. It’s why the same names keep recycling in and out of positions on the school board and city council.
Sure, they care about Antioch and seem to say the right things. Everyone wants downtown revitalization, safe neighborhoods and functional city services. But they lack the courage, vision, and energy to act decisively in critical moments, before it’s too late.
Tamisha Torres-Walker was built for those moments. She has spent her time on the council listening to constituents, doing the work, and using her council seat to advocate for all Antioch residents—and she has the track record to prove it. District 1 voters need to send her back to the council for four more years of progress.
AUSD Superintendent Dr. Darnise Williams is suing the District and Area 5 Trustee Mary Rocha. Photos: AUSD
Dr. Darnise Williams, in her 4th job in the past 6 years, claims a “campaign to remove” her for refusing “to overlook questionable payments” and because she “disclosed fiscal and legal noncompliance to officials empowered to correct it,” plus, “she made an internal complaint concerning discriminatory, biased, harassing, and retaliatory treatment by Board leadership, including conduct directed at her as a Black woman” and makesmultiple accusations against Rocha – the only Trustee to vote against hiring her
“I was the only one who didn’t vote to hire her. But on top of it, it takes three votes to get rid of her and she only targets me. Interesting, huh?” – Trustee Mary Rocha
By Allen D. Payton
Embattled Antioch Unified School District Superintendent Dr. Darnise Williams has responded to being placed on paid leave by suing the District, Area 5 Trustee Mary Rocha and unnamed “DOES 1-50” claiming a list of 12 “Damages” including whistleblower retaliation, discrimination, harassment and more. She is seeking a jury trial.
Specifically, the lawsuit, filed in Contra Costa Superior Court on Sept. 23rd, claims race and color discrimination, sex and gender discrimination, age discrimination, plus, Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) retaliation, harassment/hostile work environment, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, breach of written contract, declaratory relief, defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. According to findlaw.com, “Defamation per se means that a false statement was so inherently harmful that further proof of harm isn’t necessary. The statement would have been likely to cause reputational damage regardless of the context.”
Williams doesn’t want punitive damages against the District, just against Rocha.
Background
On a 4-1 vote, with Board President and Area 2 Trustee Dr. Jag Lathan the only school board member to vote “no”, Williams was placed on paid administrative leave on Aug. 25, 2026, after less than 14 months in the job. Williams was hired during the June 11, 2025 School Board meeting on a 3-1 vote with Rocha the lone dissenter and Area 4 Trustee Olga Cobos-Smith absent. This is Williams’ fourth position in the past six years, her starting annual base salary was $353,045, plus contractual benefits, according to the lawsuit, and she was paid $357,234 last school year. (See related article)
The Board agendized the performance evaluation of Williams for that meeting and during three previous meetings, as well.
At their Special Meeting on May 27, which was not live-streamed, the report out reads, “There was no reportable action taken during closed session.”
Then during the August 5 Special Board Meeting, which was also not live-streamed, the report out of Closed Session reads, “The Board took action by unanimous vote of all trustees present to assign Trustee Cobos-Smith with the duty of compiling the Board’s evaluation of the superintendent consistent with Board Policy 2140.”
Finally, during their Regular Meeting on August 19th, the Board again agendized the performance evaluation of the superintendent. But Lathan did not report out from Closed Session any action on the matter.
Cobos Smith was asked ifthe performance evaluation was ever provided to Dr. Williams.
“The evaluation was complete and submitted to her,” she stated in response.
The school board held a special meeting on Oct. 7th during which they met in Closed Session to discuss the lawsuit. Under item A. described as, “CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—Existing Litigation (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9) Name of Case: Dr. Darnise R. Williams v. Antioch Unified School District, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No. C26-03234.”
Since there was no video of the meeting and the minutes are not yet available on the District’s website, asked about the results from that Closed Session, Cobos Smith stated, “There was no reportable action and Dr. Lathan did not attend. The attorney just shared the complaint with us so that we would know about it through official channels before it went public.”
Yet Williams claims in her lawsuit that the Board did not conduct the oral and written annual performance review required by her employment agreement. But later in her lawsuit she claims to have received an “unsatisfactory assessment,” but reiterated that the Board “did not provide the contractually required oral evaluation.”
Cover page of Dr. Williams’ lawsuit against AUSD, Mary Rocha, et al.
Lawsuit Details
In the 30-page complaint, Williams shares the fact that she “is a Black and African-American woman over the age of forty…and therefore belongs to protected race and color classes.” The lawsuit also claims, “She was…qualified for and capable of performing the Superintendent position and performed that work successfully.”
The lawsuit explains Williams “timely presented a written claim to the District as required by the Government Claims Act. The District did not act within the statutory period, and the claim was deemed rejected.”
To support Williams’ claims of damages, the lawsuit provides general accusations and details against both the District, i.e. the Board of Trustees and staff, and specifically, against Rocha.
She claims, “Rocha…personally participated in the harassment alleged” and “Each DOE Defendant participated in, authorized, ratified, aided, or failed to prevent the unlawful conduct alleged here.”
The Introduction reads, “1. This action arises from a public school district’s campaign to remove its first-year Superintendent after she insisted that public funds, employee compensation, fiscal controls, and Board governance comply with law. Plaintiff was hired to lead and stabilize the District. She did that work. When she refused to overlook questionable payments and disclosed fiscal and legal noncompliance to officials empowered to correct it, influential trustees turned the scrutiny onto her.
“2. The retaliation followed a recognizable sequence: race- and gender-charged remarks; escalating personal hostility; dissemination of accusations that an outside investigation did not substantiate; manipulation of the contractual evaluation process; a manufactured unsatisfactory assessment untethered to the agreed performance goals; and, ultimately, removal from active duty on paid administrative leave while the District moved immediately toward interim leadership.
“3. The paid leave is nevertheless materially adverse: it stripped her of the duties and authority of Superintendent, impaired her reputation and future employability, denied contractual evaluation and compensation rights, and positioned the District to end her employment.
“4. The District did not conduct the oral and written annual performance review required by Plaintiff’s written employment agreement. After Plaintiff invoked the contract’s notice-and-cure procedure, the District still failed to complete the agreed review. Under the contract, her evaluation therefore became satisfactory and the applicable salary-step increase was due retroactively. The District instead issued a procedurally defective document built on generalized and stereotyped criticisms.
“5. Plaintiff seeks…no punitive damages against the District…only against Rocha based on malice, oppression, or fraud shown at trial.”
Specific Claims – Discovered Illegal Payments to Trustees,
Williams’ lawsuit offers details about multiple matters and claims the following:
First, regarding her claim of whistleblower status, under section B. Protected Disclosures and Opposition the superintendent alleges she “discovered cash-in-lieu health-benefit payments to trustees, including Rocha, that Plaintiff reasonably believed were unauthorized or otherwise inconsistent with governing law and lawful use of public funds…stopped or corrected the…payments…disclosed the issue to persons with authority to investigate, discover, or correct the noncompliance…sought legal guidance and refused to approve or perpetuate payments she reasonably believed unlawful.” Williams “also disclosed other fiscal and governance concerns, including unauthorized compensation or salary placements, failures of internal control, and conduct she reasonably believed implicated open-meeting, labor, or public-fund requirements…to District officials, Board members, counsel, auditors, fiscal professionals, and other persons or public bodies with authority over” her “or authority to investigate and correct the reported violations.”
Her complaint claims, “The District, Rocha, and other decisionmakers knew of Plaintiff’s disclosures and protected opposition before taking the adverse actions.”
Williams’ lawsuit also shares that, “She made an internal complaint concerning discriminatory, biased, harassing, and retaliatory treatment by Board leadership, including conduct directed at her as a Black woman.”
Claims Rocha Wanted a Latino Superintendent, Plus, Racial, Gender and Age Discrimination by District
Under section C. Defendants Violated Plaintiff’s Civil Rights, the lawsuit continues, “Rocha told Plaintiff (Williams) in substance that Plaintiff had not been Rocha’s preferred choice because Rocha wanted a Latino Superintendent. Rocha also invoked the prior Black Superintendent having been run out of the District. These remarks directly revealed race and ethnicity as considerations in Rocha’s view of District leadership.”
Williams also claims to have “challenged payments benefiting Rocha” and “Rocha and aligned decisionmakers repeatedly cast” the superintendent “through racialized stereotypes: angry, aggressive, threatening, bullying, incoherent, and unprofessional.” But Williams claims, “Those labels were not supported by specific contemporaneous facts and were inconsistent with witness accounts and investigative findings.”
She also claims that treatment was unfair and inconsistent as “the District treated white administrators and executives more favorably in evaluations, discipline, succession decisions, workplace complaints, and access to a fair process. White counterparts who exercised forceful leadership, enforced fiscal controls, rejected improper demands, or encountered complaints were not subjected to the same racialized labels, irregular procedures, removal of duties, or accelerated replacement activity. The comparative records are within Defendants’ possession and control.” However, only the superintendent is hired directly by the school board, while all other top district leaders are hired by the superintendent.
Williams’ complaint also claims, “race and color were substantial motivating reasons for those actions, as shown by direct race-based remarks, racialized stereotypes, materially less favorable treatment than similarly situated white counterparts, disparate handling of complaints, failure to follow objective procedures, and the participation of biased decisionmakers” and she was subjected as “a Black woman in the District’s highest executive position, to gendered and intersectional stereotypes” and that she was treated differently than “similarly situated male leaders” and that her “sex and gender were substantial motivating reasons for the altered evaluation, denial of compensation rights, removal of duties, paid leave, and succession activity, independently and in combination with race and color.”
Finally, Williams claims she “was over forty and qualified for the Superintendent position” and that “decisionmakers favored materially younger candidates for interim or permanent leadership, evaluated younger leaders more favorably, and considered Plaintiff’s age when accelerating succession planning” and claims further that her “age was a substantial motivating reason for the altered evaluation, denial of compensation rights, removal of duties, paid leave, and succession activity.”
Yet, after placing Williams on leave, the Board hired a retired superintendent, Jose Banda, who began his education career in 1984, as the District’s interim superintendent which would place his age to be in the mid-60’s.
Alleged Physical Incident with Rocha
Under section D. Manufactured Complaints and a Predetermined Evaluation, Williams claims an alleged physical incident with Rocha was “a brief interaction” in which she “did not yell at, threaten, touch, hit, block, or accost Rocha, and did not shake a phone in her face. Contemporaneous witnesses reported that Plaintiff was not angry and did nothing improper.” Further, the superintendent claims, “Rocha initially indicated that Plaintiff’s phone was not in her face and that she was fine. She later filed a formal complaint portraying the exchange as angry, aggressive, threatening, and physical.”
Williams’ lawsuit also claims that Rocha “later falsely stated as an asserted fact that Plaintiff hit or physically assaulted her” and “knew the accusation was false because no such contact occurred” with which Rocha disagrees (see below), and that, “Rocha advanced the accusation at a critical point in Plaintiff’s evaluation cycle, circulated it within the Board, and used it to advocate for Plaintiff’s removal.”
The superintendent’s complaint further explains, “An outside investigation did not sustain the principal accusation against Plaintiff,” with which Rocha agrees (see below). But Williams states, “The District nevertheless continued to rely on the accusation’s stigmatizing themes and allowed Rocha to participate in decisions affecting Plaintiff.”
Unfair, Incomplete Evaluation, Changed Process, Not Neutral or Done in Good-Faith
In that same section, Williams claims, “Before a fair evaluation was completed, Board members and agents changed the agreed process, marginalized the agreed goals, and relied on generalized complaints that staff felt bullied, that Plaintiff’s communications lacked clarity, that accountability was absent, and that social-media complaints had increased.” Further the superintendent claims the Board, “did not fairly apply the agreed instrument to the mutually established goals, and did not identify concrete facts sufficient to permit meaningful response,” and that “The assessment was signed or supported by persons who had participated in accusations against Plaintiff or had conflicts affecting their neutrality. Other trustees did not sign it. The process was irreconcilable with a neutral, good-faith evaluation.”
Finally in that section, Williams alleges, she “timely submitted a detailed written rebuttal. Defendants did not cure the process or apply the contract’s deemed-satisfactory provision and earned salary increase.”
Alleges Rocha Committed Unlawful Conduct, Made Defamatory Statements
Under section E. Rocha’s Unlawful Conduct and Defamatory Statements, Williams repeats her accusations against Rocha and further claims the Area 5 Trustee, “voluntarily republished the false accusation” that Williams “hit or physically assaulted” Rocha both “orally and in writing to District employees, community members, and other third persons who had no official role in, legitimate need for, or common interest in any such proceeding” and that “Those extrajudicial republications were not made in any official proceeding, were not made to initiate or achieve the objects of any official proceeding, and were not logically related to any such proceeding.”
Williams further claims that Rocha’s accusations, “directly injured Plaintiff in her profession as Superintendent by portraying her as violent, dangerous, and unfit to lead a public school district. It caused presumed and actual reputational, professional, economic, and emotional harm” and “District administrators and supervisory employees knew or reasonably should have known of Rocha’s hostility, bias, escalating retaliation, false accusation, and the foreseeable risk of reputational and emotional harm. They nevertheless failed to use reasonable care to separate conflicted actors, supervise the process, prevent unnecessary dissemination, correct known falsehoods, and conduct a neutral evaluation and investigation.”
Thus, Williams’ lawsuit asserts, “Those operational failures were negligent acts and omissions of District employees acting within the scope of their employment, not a claim that the District is directly liable at common law or liable
for Rocha’s misrepresentation” and their “conduct caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress and the other injuries alleged above.”
Alleges Being Placed on Leave by Board Was “Planned”
Finally, under section F. Paid Administrative Leave and Continuing Harm, Williams’ lawsuit claims that since, for the special Board meeting on Aug. 25th, “the agenda combined Plaintiff’s evaluation, dismissal or discipline, and appointment of interim leadership” the “sequence reflected that the result had been planned before any lawful and fair decision making process was completed.”
Actually, both terms “acting” and “interim” were included on the agenda for that meeting, and the items were options provided to the Board so, that if the second action was taken, they could take the third action and not have to wait to come back at a future meeting to appoint an acting superintendent. The three agenda items read: “A. Public Employee Evaluation – Superintendent; B. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release; and C. Public Employee Appointment – Acting and/or Interim Superintendent.”
However, it does appear that both individuals to fill the roles of acting and interim superintendent were already lined up. After announcing Williams had been placed on leave, Board President Dr. Jag Lathan reported out that the Board also, “took action in Closed Session by a unanimous vote…to appoint Ed Dacus as Acting Superintendent effective August 26th through August 30th, 20206 and Jose Banda as Interim Superintendent effective August 31st, 20206 through and until his services are no longer needed.”
Williams lawsuit claims, “When immediate termination could not lawfully proceed at that meeting, Defendants relied on a separate electronic-signature allegation as a basis to remove Plaintiff from active duty and open another investigation,” and that “interim or successor activity began before the formal leave decision, further showing pretext and predetermined removal.”
As a result, she alleges, “The leave nevertheless removed Plaintiff’s authority, duties, access, and professional platform as Superintendent; stigmatized her before staff and the community; interfered with contractual performance; impaired her reputation and future earning capacity; and denied the salary increase due under the agreement,” and she “has suffered and continues to suffer economic loss, lost contractual compensation and benefits, loss of professional opportunities, injury to reputation, humiliation, anxiety, panic symptoms, sleep disruption, headaches, emotional distress, and related harm.”
Finally, Williams complaint claims, “The temporal proximity, shifting explanations, deviation from established procedure, selective investigations, direct bias evidence, and use of unsupported stereotypes demonstrate that Plaintiff’s protected disclosures and protected characteristics were substantial or contributing reasons for the adverse actions,” and “If Defendants terminate her or otherwise reduce compensation, she will seek the resulting back pay, front pay, severance, benefits, retirement losses, and future earning losses.”
Causes of Action
The lawsuit then lists the 12 causes of action:
1. Whistleblower Retaliation — Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 1102.6 Against District and DOES 1–25
2. Race and Color Discrimination — Government Code § 12940(a) Against District and DOES 1–25
3. Sex and Gender Discrimination — Government Code § 12940(a) Against District and DOES 1–25
4. Age Discrimination — Government Code § 12940(a) Against District and DOES 1–25
5. FEHA Retaliation — Government Code § 12940(h) Against District and DOES 1–25
6. Harassment and Hostile Work Environment — Government Code § 12940(j) Against All Defendants
7. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation – Government Code § 12940(k) Against District and DOES 1–25
8. Breach of Written Contract Against District and DOES 1–25
9. Declaratory Relief Against District and DOES 1–25
10. Defamation Per Se Against Rocha and DOES 26–30
11. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against Rocha and DOES 26–30
12. Negligence — Government Code §§ 815, 815.2, and 820 Against District and DOES 31–50
Relief Sought
Williams seeks the following 11 items as relief:
From the District she wants, “general, special, compensatory, and consequential damages according to proof, including emotional-distress and reputational damages;
“economic damages…including unpaid contractual compensation and benefits, lost professional opportunities, and impaired earning capacity;
“back pay, front pay, severance, lost benefits, retirement losses, and future earnings to the extent such losses accrue and are recoverable; and
“the civil penalty authorized by Labor Code section 1102.5(f); That section is about retaliation and reads, “an employer is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per employee for each violation of this section to be awarded to the employee who was retaliated against.”
Williams also seeks, “declaratory relief determining the parties’ rights and obligations under the employment agreement;
“the District to correct or remove the defective evaluation, honor the deemed-satisfactory and salary provisions, cease unlawful retaliation and discrimination, preserve relevant evidence, and provide other appropriate prospective relief;
“reasonable attorney’s fees; and costs of suit and prejudgment and postjudgment interest as permitted by law.”
From Rocha Williams wants, “presumed and actual damages for defamation per se against Rocha, including reputational, professional, and economic harm; punitive and exemplary damages against Rocha only on the harassment, defamation, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims, in an amount sufficient to punish and deter.”
Finally, Williams wants, “other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.”
Rocha Responds, Doesn’t Have Copy of Lawsuit
Rocha is the only incumbent running for re-election and the only one specifically named in the lawsuit.
When reached for comment Trustee Rocha said, “I was the only one who didn’t vote to hire her. But on top of it, it takes three votes to get rid of her and she only targets me. Interesting, huh?”
“She’s suing me for $5 million, is what I was told,” she added. But the lawsuit does not list any specific total dollar amount that Williams is seeking.
Asked if she attended the Oct. 7th Closed Session meeting Rocha said, “I was there.” Asked if she had to hire her own attorney she said, “No, not under these circumstances since I’m under the school board and the school district attorney represents me, is my understanding.”
Asked if she’s seen the lawsuit or has a copy of it, Rocha said, “I haven’t asked. I haven’t even been bothered with it, right now.” But it was reviewed with her and the other Board members during their Closed Session meeting on Oct. 7th.
Asked about the claim that she told Williams she wanted a Latino superintendent instead, Rocha said, “Yes, it’s true I didn’t vote for her. But that doesn’t mean I’m racist. I told her about the Hispanic candidate and that they were both equal in their background. But majority rules.”
“A majority of students in the District are Hispanic,” she pointed out.
Rocha also spoke about the incident with Williams when she claims things got physical saying, “It was during one of the meetings at the Deer Valley High theater between the restrooms and the state. “Dee saw it happen and stepped in between us.”
“I filed a letter to put in her file. I have never done that in my life. The attorney found it was no cause,” she added.
“They’re trying to find something to kick me out because they haven’t been able to,” Rocha stated. Then about why she’s running again said, “I want to get back there because I want to clean up things she’s made a mess of.”
“When people look at the disaster in the District, they’re going to think I’m part of it. But I didn’t vote for her. I didn’t vote for the wages. I didn’t vote for a lot of things,” Rocha stated. “I’ve been fighting this all the way, but I didn’t have the other two votes. Then two of them did join me,” referring to Brown and Cobos Smith. She said that occurred following the incident when things allegedly got physical.
Rocha faces one opponent in the November election, which will be held on Tuesday, Nov. 3rd. Lathan chose not to run for re-election for Area 2 Trustee and only Roxanne Reece filed to run.
How do we move forward when it feels like we keep taking steps backward?
That’s the question I find myself asking every time a new City Council agenda is released – and why I talk so much.
Across the Bay Area and throughout California, communities are finding creative ways to adapt to a changing economy, workforce shortages, tightening budgets and the evolving needs of residents. They are identifying opportunities, thinking bigger and finding ways to move projects forward.
For example:
Brentwood, CA is nearly complete with the Sand Creek Sports Complex
Kern County is developing one of California’s largest master-planned active-lifestyle communities for seniors.
Martinez has a draft of what its waterfront could look like.
Oakley, CA is breaking ground on the Amtrak station this week and has a 55-acre park plus other sports fields coming in the future.
Ontario, CA is developing a 200-acre sports empire with a 6,500 seat baseball stadium and eight baseball/softball diamonds.
Pittsburg, CA Dream Courts are nearing completion.
Plumas Lake, north of Sacramento, is getting a wave park on more than 100 acres.
Rancho Cordova is moving forward with plans for a 7,500-plus-seat arena.
Richmond, CA has $550 million coming from Chevron that they get to put to work.
Walnut Creek, CA is making major improvements in Heather Farms.
Antioch…. Crickets.
Actually, scratch that. In Antioch, we are losing things such as the El Campanil Theatre, Babe Ruth Fields, our Amtrak Station and are mall is on its last leg.
Every other community in State of California isn’t sitting around waiting for opportunity to knock. They’re creating it by doing the work and actually being inviting—it also helps when a city is clean and crime is under control.
For a decade, Antioch has used the word “opportunity” as its motto, yet actions say otherwise. At what point do we stop talking about opportunity and instead put shovels in the ground and begin working towards our potential.
Too often, it feels like we wait, hope something happens or throw up our hands before we even get started. That mentality has to change. Our city deserves better, our residents deserve better, and our future is worth fighting for.
We have so many underutilized assets that its embarrassing – the delta waterfront, the foothills of Mount Diablo, our agricultural heritage. Instead, Antioch apparently has lost its identity and we have no idea what we want to be in 10, 20, or 30 years from now.
It’s difficult to create a roadmap for the future when we haven’t even agreed on where we’re trying to go. There is no map. There is no vision. There is no plan.
And that’s where leadership matters.
If we want meaningful plans that reflect the priorities, needs and aspirations of our residents, we need a City Hall that is capable of helping lead those conversations. That requires strong leadership from the city manager’s office, competent department heads and a culture that encourages innovation, accountability and problem-solving.
Unfortunately, when leadership breaks down, the entire organization suffers – which we are experiencing right now with Band-Aid solutions to lipstick on a pig commentary.
How can we expect staff, or even investors, to bring forward bold ideas, pursue economic development opportunities or engage residents in meaningful discussions when we are still struggling to manage basic contracts?
Look no further than what happened at the last City Council meeting.
I raised concerns about nearly $500,000 in contract amendments involving work at the water park. These amendments were placed on the consent calendar, where items are typically approved without discussion.
The council ultimately approved the amendments, potentially avoiding a legal dispute with the contractor.
But here’s the problem: The work had already been completed nearly a month before the amendments were brought to the council for approval.
Think about that for a moment.
Under the city’s contracting rules, agreements exceeding $50,000 require City Council approval. Yet somehow, additional work approaching half a million dollars was either authorized beyond the appropriate approval process or allowed to proceed without sufficient oversight.
Then, after the work was completed, the council was essentially asked to approve the bill.
What would have happened if the council had voted no?
Would the city have faced a lawsuit? Would taxpayers have been left paying even more? Who was responsible for ensuring the proper approvals were obtained before the work began?
These aren’t minor administrative questions. They go directly to accountability, communication, financial oversight and the basic responsibility of protecting taxpayer dollars.
And frankly, the City Council should never be put in a position where it is asked to approve nearly $500,000 in additional spending after the work is already finished.
This is precisely the type of dysfunction that erodes public confidence in City Hall – and this isn’t even bringing up the staff report on the Economic Development Department and staff mailing in the item for council to basically work through with few details and boundaries, such as the budget.
I realize I am a candidate in Antioch District 4, but with an election coming quickly, I would hope all voters would require candidates to actually explain how they intend to fix basic problems at city hall. Not with campaign rhetoric, talking point, fancy slogans we here every year, but provide an actual plan that could result in real solutions.
Perhaps Mayor Pro Tem Don Freitas is onto something with his request for a centralized purchasing department responsible for all contract administration, compliance, and ensuring proper procedures are followed. It warrants some serious consideration given the water park example above.
It’s a practical proposal that deserves discussion which apparently went over the head of the rest of the city council.
There is no doubt in my mind that many parts of City Hall seem to operate like the Wild West, with inconsistent oversight, questionable communication and problems being addressed only after they’ve already occurred.
That isn’t how a professional organization should function, particularly one responsible for managing millions of dollars in public funds. It is almost worth a call to the Grand Jury and let them see if my hunches are correct.
Antioch needs leadership that sets expectations, holds departments accountable, empowers employees to succeed and ensures that basic government operations are handled correctly.
We also need a City Council willing to require those standards rather than simply accepting explanations after the fact.
Bottom line: You cannot build a city of opportunity on a foundation of dysfunction and not everyone playing by the same rulebook.
We should be talking about economic development, new amenities, attracting investment, supporting local businesses and creating a community that future generations are proud to call home. You know, showcasing potential.
Instead, we’re spending valuable time cleaning up preventable mistakes over and over again.
Our community has tremendous potential. The location, the people, the natural beauty and the opportunities are all here. What we need now is the leadership, vision and discipline to put those assets to work.
We shouldn’t have to wait another year or two for competent management, better communication and basic accountability. And we certainly shouldn’t have to wait for detail oriented staff reports with all the information that would inform a community – it would actually shorten council meetings.
Antioch should understand that opportunity isn’t something you hang on a wall or put on letterhead and it happens. It’s something you pursue, plan for and deliver.
And until City Hall starts operating with that mindset, we’re going to keep asking the same frustrating question: How do we move forward when we keep shooting ourselves in the foot with the same issues over and over again.
