For Congressional, State Senate, State Assembly, Board of Equalization districts; changes will affect who represents Antioch; more public input encouraged

SACRAMENTO, CA—On Wednesday, the 2020 California Citizens Redistricting Commission released draft maps for the state’s Congressional, State Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization districts ahead of the CA Supreme Court mandated November 15, 2021 deadline.

“We are finally here. We proudly present these draft maps to the people of California as a starting point for public discussion. These are not intended to be final maps and we strongly encourage Californians to continue weighing in until we get it right,” stated Commission Chair Trena Turner. “A global pandemic and delayed census data would not stop this commission from delivering on its promise to create maps that encourage fair representation. We will have final maps completed and certified by the December 27, 2021 deadline. There is still plenty of time for the public to get involved. We urge you to join us because everything is on the lines.”

A major consideration in redrawing the Congressional districts was the fact that California lost a seat in the decennial reapportionment due to population shifts away from the state. That reduces the delegation in the House of Representatives from 53 to 52. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, across the country, the Golden State was joined by Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia in losing one Congressional seat each. Oregon, Montana, Colorado, North Carolina and Florida each gained one seat, while Texas gained two Congressional seats.

According to an SFGate.com news report, “In the Bay Area…Contra Costa County has been the biggest source of complaints…some…Antioch residents have complained about African American neighborhoods being split up, while residents south of them in the Tri-Valley area are annoyed that San Ramon and Dublin were kept in separate congressional districts.”

Using the multitude of communities of interest testimony the Commission received throughout the summer, they assessed how that testimony could potentially inform district boundaries considering the tradeoffs that needed to be made in eventual maps. The Commission produced three sets of visualizations (October 27-29, November 2-4, November 7-9) that incorporated additional public input to evolve into draft maps.

Draft maps can be found here and below.

Approved Draft Maps
CONGRESS

• 11.10.21 Congressional Draft Map
• 11.10.21 Congressional Shape Files
• 11.10.21 Congressional Equivalency Files

STATE SENATE

• 11.10.21 State Senate Draft Map
• 11.10.21 State Senate Shape Files
• 11.10.21 State Senate Equivalency Files

ASSEMBLY

• 11.10.21 Assembly Draft Map
• 11.10.21 Assembly Shape Files
• 11.10.21 Assembly Equivalency Files

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

• 11.10.21 Board of Equalization Draft Map
• 11.10.21 Board of Equalization Shape Files
• 11.10.21 Board of Equalization Equivalency Files

We encourage the public to provide feedback using this form.

Public comment shall be taken for at least 14 days from the date of public display of the first preliminary statewide (draft) maps of the Congressional, State Senatorial, Assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts. The Commission shall not display any other map for public comment during the 14-day period.

Draft Map Public Input Meeting Schedule
November 17, 2021—Congressional District Feedback
November 18, 2021—Assembly District Feedback
November 19, 2021—Senate District Feedback
November 20, 2021—Board of Equalization & Any District Feedback
November 22, 2021—Any District Feedback
November 23, 2021—Any District Feedback

Public input meeting appointments can be made here.

In accordance with the California Constitution, the Commission followed these criteria, in this order, to draw district maps:

1. Districts must be of equal population to comply with the U.S. Constitution.
2. Districts must comply with the Voting Rights Act to ensure that minorities have an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
3. Districts must be drawn contiguously, so that all parts of the district are connected to each other.
4. Districts must minimize the division of cities, counties, neighborhoods and communities of interest to the extent possible.
5. Districts should be geographically compact: such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for a more distant population. This requirement refers to density, not shape. Census blocks cannot be split.
6. Where practicable each Senate District should be comprised of two complete and adjacent Assembly Districts, and Board of Equalization districts should be comprised of 10 complete and adjacent State Senate Districts.

In addition, the place of residence of any incumbent or political candidate may not be considered in the creation of a map, and districts may not be drawn for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.

Every 10 years, after the federal government publishes updated census information, California must redraw the boundaries of its electoral districts so that the state’s population is evenly allocated among the new districts.

In 2008, California voters passed the Voters First Act, authorizing the creation of the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw new State Senate, State Assembly, and State Board of Equalization district lines. In 2010, the Voters First Act for Congress gave the Commission the responsibility of drawing new Congressional districts following every census.

For more information, please visit www.WeDrawTheLinesCA.org.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Mails letter, again instead of emailing it, further delaying process; proponents used county template which is different than state template that the city clerk follows; revised petition submitted Tuesday afternoon

By Allen Payton

On Saturday, Nov. 6 proponents for the recall of Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe received by certified mail a second letter denying their petition paperwork from City Clerk Ellie Householder because it didn’t match the format she has chosen to follow. In addition, this time she added an unneeded requirement that wasn’t mentioned in her first denial letter. It’s the second time the city clerk has rejected the Thorpe’s recall petition. (See related article)

The challenge the organizers faced was the template they followed for the recall petition format they received from the County Clerk is slightly different than the one from the California Secretary of State, which Householder follows. Contra Costa County Recall Petition Template      Secretary of State Recall Petition Template

Under “Necessary Corrections” Householder’s letter reads the same for the first two items. The new correction reads, “Must include ‘Official Top Funders’ pursuant to Elections Code section 107(b).”

Kathy Cabrera, one of the leaders of the recall effort, who served Thorpe with the recall notice, said, “If that really needed to be corrected, why didn’t she include it in the first letter? But in fact, it doesn’t.”

That’s because the requirement is only if an official committee has been formed, which the recall proponents haven’t done, yet.

Asked if they had formed a committee she said, “No and there was nothing that would even say we had a committee.”

The Recall Procedures Guide on the California Secretary of State’s website, for local officials on page 16, reads as follows:

Official Top Funders Disclosure Requirements

For any recall petition for which the circulation is paid for by a committee formed pursuant to Government Code 82013, an Official Top Funders disclosure shall be included on the petition or in a separate document presented to a prospective signer of the petition. (Elections Code § 107(b))

As for the first two corrections, Cabrera stated, “We followed the template used for the petition for Householder’s recall from the school board and that was accepted by the County Clerk.”

That complaint is in addition to the fact that they were forced to wait two extra days – both times – because Householder refused to provide them with her letter via email or in person. That is delaying the signature gathering process because proponents must first receive a letter from the city clerk that their petition paperwork has been approved.

“Had we received her letter by email on Thursday, we could have had the corrected paperwork back to her on Friday to start another ten days,” Cabrera stated. “She’s only required to provide it in writing. email is in writing.”

Questions for Householder

An email was sent to the city clerk on Saturday asking, “why does your latest letter, dated Nov. 4, 2021, denying the petition of the proponents for Mayor Thorpe’s recall, list the requirement that they disclose their top funders, when they haven’t yet formed a committee? Is a committee name on any of the documents they submitted to the City Clerk’s office? If not, why would you assume they formed one? Or did you simply make a mistake in your latest letter? Also, even if it was a requirement, why didn’t you include that in the first letter you sent them?

“Is it true, as has been shared, that you and Lamar have been working together on this, and that you have obtained the advice of a consultant to assist you in responding to the proponents of his recall, and to handle the paperwork and process for it?

“Finally, if the proponents followed the same format provided by the County Clerk’s office, which was also used for the petition for your recall that the County Clerk’s office approved, how is their latest petition submission for the mayor’s recall incorrect, as you cited in the first two sections of the Necessary Corrections?”

Householder did not respond to any questions as of publication time Tuesday night, Nov. 9.

Different Petition Templates Used by County and City

“We spoke with the county clerk’s office staff on Monday, and we ended up using the state’s template, this time,” Cabrera said. “Because the template we had used before was the County’s. The Householder recall petition was approved using that template. But it’s different than the state’s template.”

“It’s not very different but enough that one item needed to be changed,” she continued. “But the third requirement of disclosing the Official Top Funders does not apply to us, because we haven’t formed a committee and we don’t meet the requirements to complete a Form 410, yet.”

That’s the form required once a committee is formed or if $1,000 is received from one individual or $2,000 from more than one.

“There are multiple thresholds, and we haven’t met any of them, yet,” Cabrera added.

“One of the corrections was so ambiguous we couldn’t figure out exactly what she wants,” she continued. “We sequentially numbered the proponents’ names following the example of the recall papers for Governor Newsom.”

When they submitted the petitions both times, the names of the proponents weren’t numbered.

“We even made sure the first paragraph wasn’t indented,” Cabrera explained. “It does say the petition has to be identical to the template. But Householder was being difficult. So, we removed the indentation and numbered the names.”

They reviewed every letter and even used a measuring tape to make sure the box next to where people sign is one inch from the edge, as required.

Another minor difference is the county petition template doesn’t have a place for the signature gatherer to date the form and the state’s does. So, they added that, as well

Organizers Submit Revised Petition

The revised paperwork was submitted Tuesday afternoon with a cover letter. Thorpe recall petition-#3 cover ltr

“Petition number three was graciously accepted by Ms. Householder. She actually date stamped it and provided a copy of it. She didn’t do that before.”

Asked if Householder approved the petition, Cabrera responded, “No. She didn’t approve it. She accepted it as filed.”

“Although we feel we shouldn’t have had to submit the paperwork for a third time, because we followed the county’s template used for Householder’s recall, that was for school board and this is for the mayor,” she concluded.

“Now we wait 10 calendar days. I think that’s the 19th,” Cabrera added.

 

Will review during special meeting/study session Tuesday at 5:30 p.m.; challenges with and complaints about mapping tool

“I also understand that there has been NO one on the site, nor has anyone giving their ideas as to the drawing of the maps.” – Councilwoman Ogorchock

By Allen Payton

The Antioch City Council will hold a special meeting/study session on redrawing their district boundaries at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday night. They will be reviewing, discussing and receiving public comments on two draft maps even before the promised online mapping tool, on the city’s redistricting webpage, available to the public was announced. It can be accessed here: www.redrawmyantioch.publicredistricting.com.

The draft maps on tomorrow night’s agenda offer two options and show slight changes to Districts 3 and 4, but no apparent changes to Districts 1 and 2. Districts must be within 5% of the average population of 115,580. The current district maps are based on the 2010 Census when Antioch had a population of 102,372. With more residential growth occurring in District 3 over the past 10 years and a population that is 6.08% greater than average of 28,895 population per district, some of the population had to be shifted to other districts. Since the population in District 4 is 4.63% less than the average some of the population from District 3 was shifted to District 4 for both Draft Maps A and B. Antioch City Council Redistricting Meeting Agenda 110921

Antioch-Redistricting-Draft-Map-A      Antioch-Redistricting-Draft-Map-B      Antioch-Draft-Map-Demographics 110921

Questions for City Council, Staff, Consultant

The following questions were sent via email Monday afternoon to all five council members, City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith and other city staff asking, “when did the online mapping tool become available? How was the public informed of it being available? Has any member of the public used it or submitted a proposed map? If not, isn’t it premature to be discussing draft maps before the public has had the opportunity to submit their own proposed maps?”

In addition, they were asked, “why are you holding these meetings at 5:30 p.m. when many residents are still commuting home from work, instead of having a special meeting next Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. or on a Saturday and in person for people to attend and see the maps large and up close? Will you be holding more meetings on redistricting and in person?”

In addition, similar questions were asked of the consultant, Karin Mac Donald of Q2 Data and Research after work hours on Monday.

District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock was the only one to respond Monday evening.

“I don’t know who created these maps, I was told staff,” she wrote. “The interactive part came out on Tuesday. Not enough time for individuals to be able to start working on their thoughts. I also understand that there has been NO one on the site, nor has anyone giving their ideas as to the drawing of the maps.”

“I’ve asked for another meeting, in person, to get feedback. So far that’s been a no go. We’ll have to see,” Ogorchock added.

Challenges With Online Mapping Tool

After a third attempt using three different email addresses to sign up for the online mapping tool, this reporter was able to establish an account to create a map and save it for submission to the city council.

That information and the following additional questions were sent to council members and staff: “Can someone please get that fixed? If I can’t sign up and another person who told me they tried, how can you expect the public to submit proposed maps to provide you their input? What if others don’t have multiple email addresses? Might they just give up and not use the mapping tool? Did someone on city staff test it, first?”

“I totally agree with you,” Ogorchock responded. “I’ve gotten several complaints already. Plus, there is hardly any Spanish documents. Not good.”

Watching Meeting and Public Comments

The special meeting/study session can be viewed at https://www.antiochca.gov/live_stream, on Comcast Channel 24, or AT&T U-Verse Channel 99.

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

1. Fill out an online speaker card by 3:00 p.m. the day of the Council Meeting located at: https://www.antiochca.gov/speaker_card.
2. Provide oral public comments during the meeting by clicking the following link to register in advance to access the meeting via Zoom Webinar: https://www.antiochca.gov/speakers

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

– When the Mayor announces public comments, click the “raise hand” feature in Zoom. For instructions on using the “raise hand” feature in Zoom, visit: https://www.antiochca.gov/raise_hand. When calling into the meeting using the Zoom Webinar telephone number, press *9 on your telephone keypad to “raise your hand”. Please ensure your Zoom client is updated so staff can enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak.

3. Email comments to cityclerk@ci.antioch.ca.us by 3:00 p.m. the day of the Council Meeting. The comment will be read into the record at the meeting (350 words maximum, up to 3 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor). IMPORTANT: Identify the agenda item in the subject line of your email if the comment is for Announcement of Community Events, Public Comment, or a specific Agenda Item number. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during “Public Comments”.

All emails received by 3:00 p.m. the day of the Council Meeting will be entered into the record for the meeting.

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

Blame placed on unvaccinated, including children ages 5-11

“We need 92,000 more people to get vaccinated,” Contra Costa Health Services Director Anna Roth

Next redistricting hearing Nov. 9

By Daniel Borsuk

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will not meet in their gleaming new state-of-the-art hearing room for the first time in the new $95 million Contra Costa County Administration Building until January, if then.

It all depends on how the county’s fight against COVID-19 goes. At least for now, Contra Costans will have to continue to remotely view and participate in supervisors’ meetings.

While the new three-story Contra Costa County Administration building at 1025 Escobar St. in Martinez is open for administrative services, the public hearing room goes unused by the public. (See related article)

Only county administrative and county counsel use the hearing room during board of supervisors’ meetings.

On a 4-0 vote, supervisors approved, during their meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 2, its second consecutive order recommended from County Counsel Mary Ann Mason to extend for at least through December, the teleconference public meeting order that applies to all county governmental entities.

The edict also applies to the board of supervisors’ advisory commissions.  Meetings conducted for the planning commission, airports commission, library commission, merit board, and Proposition X advisory commission among other advisory panels must continue to be conducted via Zoom or other teleconference media.

The supervisors’ action to extend the COVID-19 public meeting teleconference order arose from the fact that 92,000 five- to 11-year-old children in the county are now eligible to get vaccinated, Contra Costa Health Services Director Anna Roth announced.

This announcement will add more burden to county health officials to vaccinate residents. She informed supervisors the county’s total vaccination rate is 73.2 percent.

“We need 92,000 more people to get vaccinated,” Roth informed supervisors.

Mason recommended supervisors adopt the resolution because “the COVID-19 case rate in Contra Costa County is in the ‘substantial’ community transmission tier, the second-highest tier of the CDC’s four community transmission tiers and the County Health Officer’s recommendations for safely holding public meetings, which recommend virtual meetings and other measures to promote social distancing, are still in effect.”

In October, supervisors had adopted a similar resolution authored by County Counsel Mason to continue teleconference meetings for public health reasons at least until November, but obviously the public health landscape had not improved sufficiently for state health officials to lift all the burdensome public meeting restrictions.

While county health officials reported the county is making progress in getting Contra Costa residents vaccinated, “A Statewide state of emergency and the Countywide local emergency continue to directly impact the ability of the Board of Supervisors, in all of its capacities, and its subcommittees and advisory bodies.”

Another COVID-19 oriented state of emergency edict ordering Contra Costa County governmental agencies to conduct meetings remotely means the board of supervisors won’t conduct its inaugural meeting until January, if then, in the new $95 million administration building in downtown Martinez.

In the meantime, the gleaming new public hearing hall remains closed to the public.

Redistricting Public Hearing on Nov. 9

The county’s fourth public hearing on supervisorial redistricting will be held starting at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 9. The hearing will start at 9 a.m. during the Board of Supervisors meeting. The hearing will be held via Zoom and can be viewed online. (See related article)

“The County Board of Supervisors welcomes your community input in this important, decennial process,” said Board Chair Dianne Burgis of Brentwood. “We are committed to a robust Redistricting and public outreach process with public hearings, a dedicated website at CoCoRedistricting.org. public workshops, and multiple ways to share your input.”

Redistricting is based on the U.S. Census data, which was released in legacy format on August 12, 2021. The actual drawing of Supervisorial District Maps requires the official California State Adjusted Redistricting data, which was released Sept. 20, 2021 and includes updated data to ensure that individuals in the prison population are counted by each jurisdiction.

Acknowledge Black Maternal and Infant Health Day

Supervisors proclaimed Nov. 3, 2021 as Black Family Health Day to acknowledge the disparities in adverse birth outcomes among Black birthing patients and ways to turnaround those negative outcomes using pioneering technologies such as the early warning system, Partners in Pregnancy Fatherhood Program, Black Infant Health Program, and other programs.

From 2018 to 2020, 9.5 percent of Black mothers had preterm births compared to 5.8 percent of White mothers. Black babies are twice as likely to die within the first year of life as White babies (6.3/1,000 v. 3.2/1,000 from 2016 to 2020) and Black mothers experienced health-impacting, life-threatening events during childbirth at more than double the rate of White mothers from 2016 to 2018.

 

“She brought us all together, many of us strangers just one month ago, to form a united effort to demand better leadership for our students.  We are not frightened, divided, or ‘old Antioch.’”

For the past 18-months, as America dealt with the impact of COVID-19 which impacted every decision we made from homelife to work to traveling and education to shutdowns, often what went unchecked by the news stations was what was going on with decisions and actions of our local elected officials.

As COVID19 gripped America, this deadly and divisive pandemic provided a cover for an arguably more insidious and detrimental “virus” raging unchecked; political activists with inflated egos and grandiose ideas of their own importance and impact. Antioch has not escaped unscathed in this political arena.

Antioch Unified School Board (AUSD) President Ellie Householder stated her “Progressive ideas frighten people” and that is why citizens began the arduous effort to recall her.  On the surface this is a powerful and persuasive argument, implying that she is working hard for the students of AUSD and recall proponents are unwilling to accept her ideas.

Is this really the case?

Ms. Householder was voted in as president by her fellow trustees in December of 2020.  Since taking on this role she has presided over 24 meetings of the Board of Education, including 7 special meetings.

In these meetings there have been 57 agenda items under the category Items for Information/Discussion/Action by Board. Of these 57 items, 26 of them were brought forward by Ms. Householder.

• District-wide Use of Force Policies and Procedures (Householder) 09/02/2021 & 10/27/2021
• Policy Regarding Law Enforcement Interaction with Students (Householder) 10/27/2021
• Bullying Prevention Policy (Householder) 10/27/2021
• Agenda Setting/Organization (Householder) 01/27/2021 & 10/27/2021
• Public Communication Policy (Householder) 9/8/2021
• Early Education Options (Householder) 9/8/2021
• Review of Inter- and Intra-District Transfer Board Policies (Householder) 9/8/2021
• Board of Education Notification Policies and Procedures (Householder) 9/8/2021
• Data Supports (Householder) 02/24/2021 & 8/25/2021
• Bay Area Community Resources (BACR) Presentation (Householder) 8/11/2021
• Graduation Attire (Householder) 6/23/2021
• Out and About” Report (Householder) 6/9/2021
• Cleaner Contra Costa Challenge (Householder) 04/28/2021 & 5/12/2021
• Special Board Recognitions (Householder) 5/12/2021
• Bicycle Garden Presentation to the Board (Householder) 5/12/2021
• District-wide Mission Statement(s) (Householder) 4/28/2021
• District Logo (Householder) 4/28/2021
• Manhood Development Program Updates (Householder) 3/10/2021
• Change Order Reports Provided by Staff to the Board (Householder) 3/10/2021
• School Reopening (Householder) 3/10/2021
• School Safety (Householder) 2/24/2021
• Highlighting Resolutions for the Month (Householder) 2/24/2021
• Single Board Email Address (Householder) 12/16/2020 & 1/13/2021
• Goldman School of Public Policy Graduate Student Research Proposal (Householder) 12/16/2020 & 1/13/2021
• Board Meeting Protocols (Householder) 1/13/2021

Of the items presented, which progressive ideas frighten us as Ms. Householder claims? Furthermore, of these items, which actually have a direct impact on improving student achievement? I can see none. She focuses on test scores as she belittles the district. I can see no agenda item she brought forward that would improve test scores.

Meanwhile, other trustees have highlighted the digital divide, pushed for cultural inclusion, requested ROTC and JROTC programs, and sought out grant writing options. There are countless other examples.

What does Householder propose? She has three times pushed for a single board email address, twice discussed the Cleaner Contra Costa Challenge, discussed the city’s bicycle garden initiative, focused on old data, and a variety of other items that have no impact on our students.

We aren’t frightened by her progressive ideas; we are terrified by her lack of discernible action. She has provided a lot of words and media interviews but, has provided the district little to no substance with actual action.

It is interesting that for a sound bite in a recent KPIX interview, she calls herself the “most hated person in America” but fails to see we do not hate her, we dislike her leadership style which by her own admittance is “heavy handed”. Most importantly, her heavy-handed leadership has failed to focus on the students while instead attacking school leadership, employees and even parents.

Many of us who support the recall effort initially supported her for election because of how she was going to change the district. Seeing her in action, now we just want a trustee with a focus on the students and our children – not a personal vendetta.

During these same 24 meetings, the discussion to evaluate/fire the superintendent took place on six separate occasions, including twice under the guise of an emergency Special Board Meeting.  Evaluating the superintendent was seemingly important to Ms. Householder, but she failed to complete one of the primary duties of the president; the coordination and completion of the formal evaluation of the superintendent, due annually on June 30th.

Instead, her laser focus to discredit and fire the superintendent has wasted the time of the other trustees and staff, taken resources away from the students, and illustrated that the priority of her tenure as a board member and president is not focused on our students.

In that KPIX 5 interview she claims her reckless and biased behavior isn’t “dividing anybody” and the “folks behind this recall effort represent old Antioch.”  This very statement is divisive and creates an US v THEM narrative that is completely false.

There is no old or new, there is just Antioch. She also fails to remember that AUSD also encompasses part of the city of Oakley and City of Pittsburg.

The recall proponents represent all areas of AUSD and the diversity of our district.  We are grandparents, parents, recent graduates, teachers, staff, coaches, and administrators.  Our age range spans many decades from teenagers to those in their 90’s. We are members of all three AUSD unions, across all schools and cities within AUSD boundaries. We represent AUSD.

In the interview, Ms. Householder got one thing correct.  She stated, “I believe that I’m actually bringing people together” and this is true.

She brought us all together, many of us strangers just one month ago, to form a united effort to demand better leadership for our students.  We are not frightened, divided, or “old Antioch.”

#WeAreAUSD and we hope to see you at a signing location this weekend or in the near future.

Website: https://recallelliehouseholder.com/

Facebook: Recall Ellie Householder

Twitter: RecallEllieHH

Instagram: recall_elliehouseholder

Lindsey Amezcua

Community member, AUSD parent, Recall proponent, and advocate for ALL children.

 

Thorpe and Householder are political allies; what took the county two days to do for her recall from the Antioch School Board took 12 days for her to accomplish with his, twice

“I think she’s intentionally dragging her feet.” – Recall proponent Kathy Cabrera

By Allen Payton

Proponents of the recall of Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe are accusing his political ally, City Clerk Ellie Householder of not following the rules for the process in her handling of the paperwork. She is also facing recall from her position on the Antioch School Board. (See related articles here and here)

In emails sent Friday, Nov. 5, 2021, former Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen, one of 20 proponents and two people handling the paperwork for the effort, wrote to Deputy City Clerk Christina Garcia, “Once again, the Elections Official, Elizabeth Householder, has refused to provide her ‘findings’ letter to the revised Recall Petition submitted on October 25th to be made available at the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall.” Garcia responded that they didn’t have a copy of the letter to the recall proponents in the clerk’s office, included Simonsen’s original email and copied Householder.

He also wrote to City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, “the actions by City Clerk Householder are not in compliance with the Elections Code regarding the Recall process.” On the first email he copied Smith, City Manager Ron Bernal and Administrative Services Director Nickie Mastay, who is the minutes clerk for the city council and works with Householder, and the latter two on his second.

Simonsen’s complaint was that for the second time, Householder sent the finalized paperwork by certified mail instead of providing it to him and Kathy Cabrera, who served Thorpe with the recall notice, on the day it was due. That was yesterday for the organizers’ revised paperwork, which they had to submit because Householder claimed there were mistakes in the initial paperwork they submitted.

Simonsen’s other complaint was Householder took the full 10 days legally allowed to process the same paperwork as the county handled for her recall in just two days.

“The revised Recall Petition on Mayor Thorpe that was submitted on October 25th was identical to the Recall Petition that the County Elections Office approved, in format, font and layout,” he wrote.

Questions for Householder

The following questions were asked of Householder via email Friday afternoon: “Are you required to send the paperwork to the recall proponents by certified mail? If not, why did you? He’s claiming you don’t and it doesn’t appear that you are. In the state’s Recall Procedures Guide it reads: ‘The elections official must, within ten days of receiving the copies of the petition, determine whether the proposed form and wording of the petition meet the necessary requirements and notify proponents in writing of the findings.’

Why didn’t you just provide a written copy for them at the City Clerk’s office for them to have and read on the 10th day? Did you keep a copy for them and the public in the City Clerk’s office at city hall by the 10th day, which was yesterday for their revised paperwork? They’re claiming you didn’t. If so, why not?

Why did it take you the full 10 days both times to handle their paperwork when the county clerk’s office handled your recall paperwork in two days? Was it done sooner, and you just held it until the legal limit?”

Additional attempts to reach Householder were also unsuccessful prior to publication time.

Simonsen’s & Garcia’s Emails

From: Arne Simonsen

Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 3:44 AM

To: Garcia, Christina

Cc: Mastay, Nickie; Smith, Thomas Lloyd; Bernal, Ron

Subject: Elections Official Response to revised Recall Petition

Christina Garcia, CMC

Once again, the Elections Official, Elizabeth Householder, has refused to provide her “findings” letter to the revised Recall Petition submitted on October 25th to be made available at the City Clerks Office at City Hall.

Instead, she has sent it by Certified Mail which did not use the Neopost in the City Hall Mailroom.

Did she give a copy of her “findings” to City Clerks Office, since this is an official document? If so, please scan it and email to the primary proponents, Kathy Cabrera and myself.

Kathy Cabrera has submitted several emails to the Elections Official/City Clerk requesting the “findings” to be sent to her by email and that request has not been honored.

The Elections Code only requires the “findings” to be in written form, which can be made available at the City Clerks Office, sent by email as an attachment, and/or mailed.

Nowhere in the Elections Code does it require it to be sent only by Certified Mail.

Respectfully,

Arne Simonsen, MMC

Garcia Responds

From: Garcia, Christina

To: Arne Simonsen; Householder, Ellie

Cc: Mastay, Nickie; Smith, Thomas Lloyd; Bernal, Ron

Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021, 04:17:34 PM GMT

Subject: RE: Elections Official Response to revised Recall Petition

Good morning Arne,

As you are aware, Ellie Householder is the City Clerk/Elections Official for the City of Antioch.  We do not have a copy of the document in question.  I am referring your email to her for a response.

Thank you.  Be safe.

Christina Garcia, CMC

Deputy City Clerk | City Clerk Department

Simonsen’s Second Email

From: Arne Simonsen

Fri 11/5/2021 1:59 PM

To:  Thomas Lloyd Smith; Bernal Ron

Cc: Nickie Mastay

Thomas,

As one of only 1,330 Master Municipal Clerks in the world, the actions by City Clerk Householder are not in compliance with the Elections Code regarding the Recall process.

When the first Recall Petition was submitted to the City Clerks [sic] Office, Householder had 10 days to provide in writing the findings as to whether the Recall Petition met the requirements of the Elections Code. She provided a response on the 10th day, but refused to make it available on the 10th day. Instead, she sent it by Certified Mail which meant that the primary proponent did not receive the response until the 12th day !!

When the revised Recall Petition was submitted to the City Clerks Office on October 25th, Householder again had 10 days to provide a finding that either additional corrections were required or that the Recall Petition met the requirements and was approved for circulation. The 10th day was November 4th.

Again Householder refused to provide the findings on the 10th day; and instead once again sent it by Certified Mail. This means that once again the lead proponent will not received the findings until after the 10th day.

There is no requirement in the Elections Code that the findings must be sent by Certified Mail or First Class Mail. The only requirement is that it be in writing.

When I was City Clerk, I handled two Recall attempts. In both cases, I provided the findings to the proponent with two days.

The Recall Petition on Householder as an AUSD Trustee was approved by the County Elections Office in 2 days !!

The revised Recall Petition on Mayor Thorpe that was submitted on October 25th was identical to the Recall Petition that the County Elections Office approved, in format, font and layout.

This is reflecting poorly on the City and the administration of the City Clerks [sic] Office. By definition, the Deputy City Clerk is the Deputy Elections Officer.

What is even more egregious is that City Clerk Householder is not providing a copy of the findings to the Deputy City Clerk to file in the MUFFS filing system as a Public Document that is meant to be available to any member of the public to review upon request in accordance with the California Public Records Act.

I am requesting your review of the requirements of the Elections Code with regard to the Recall process and ensure that it is being properly administered in a timely manner.

Respectfully,

Arne Simonsen, MMC

“Householder Unfairly Delaying Process”

“This is the second time this has happened,” Cabrera said when reached for comment, reiterating what Simonsen wrote. “The first time the recall answer was due, I asked Deputy City Clerk Christina Garcia for a copy of the written response from Ellie. She told me they didn’t have a copy of it. I was kind of dumbfounded by that because I thought all documents needed to be retained at City Hall.”

“I was also told Ellie is a remote worker,” Cabrera continued. “So, I asked ‘are you telling me Ellie took it home with her?’ Christina said she didn’t know, but only that a copy wasn’t on file in the office. I had to wait two more days for the certified mail to arrive at my house.”

“If the city clerk’s response is a denial because we have to correct something in the petition, that it doesn’t meet state guidelines, we only have 10 days to correct and resubmit. We’re left in limbo for two days while it’s in the mail.”

The recall proponents are required to have the response letter giving approval before signature gathering can begin. Householder’s first letter said the “petition format…does not meet the requirements of the Elections Code as to form and wording.” The letter also provided two areas that needed to be corrected but didn’t provide the specifics.

Householder “was supposed to cite specifically what was wrong” with the first petition. “But she didn’t,” Cabrera shared. “I can honestly say that one of the sections was incorrect. But she was very vague.”

“We had to go to the County Elections office to get a template of a properly formatted recall petition that complies with state requirements because Ellie didn’t provide one,” Cabrera continued.

Cabrera again asked Householder via email to provide her second response letter via email.

“I emailed Ellie multiple times asking her respectfully to send her letter by email. But she refused,” Cabrera stated. “It only requires that we’re informed in writing. An email is in writing.”

“Instead, yesterday, she mailed her response letter from the Rivertown Post Office on West Fourth Street where it was dropped off at 2:19 p.m.” Cabrera explained. “At 5:45 p.m. Ellie responded by email that she had mailed it. Then, at 6:01 p.m. she emailed me pictures of the certified mail receipt with the tracking number. I checked the tracking and saw that at 5:29 p.m. it had departed Antioch heading to Oakland. So, she knew it was too late for me to go to the downtown post office and intercept it.”

Cabrera’s office is in a retail location across from City Hall.

“I was there at that time Ellie could have just handed it to me,” she said.

“Why can she email me all this other stuff but couldn’t email me a copy of her response letter?”  Cabrera asked.

“It’s blatant she’s not willing to be cooperative in this process or to comply with any requests we’ve made.”

“She’s unfairly delaying the process. I think Ellie’s intentionally dragging her feet. That’s because she’s friends and allies with the mayor,” she added. “I’m hoping we get her letter on Saturday. Otherwise we have to wait until Monday.”

Cabrera’s and Householder’s Emails

From: Kathleen Cabrera
Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 4:19 PM
To: Householder, Ellie <ehouseholder@antiochca.gov>
Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@ci.antioch.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Public Records Request

Ms. householder,

I am respectfully requesting your response to the corrected Recall Thorpe Petition due by 11/4/21 be issued to me by email. Will this email request suffice?

Thank You,

Kathy Cabrera

925-595-0678

From: “Householder, Ellie” <ehouseholder@antiochca.gov>
Date: November 4, 2021 at 5:45:41 PM PDT
To: Kathleen Cabrera
Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@ci.antioch.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Public Records Request
Ms. Cabrera,

Elections Code does not prescribe the method for a response, only that it be made in writing (EC 11224).

Now that the petition response has been mailed, you can submit a Public Records Request for the petition response letter. For convenience, I have attached a blank form to this email.

Regards,

Ellie Householder, MPP

Antioch City Clerk | Elections Official

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Public involvement is encouraged. Antioch is currently in District 2.

The BART Board of Directors’ Redistricting Committee is scheduled to hold its first meeting since receiving the 2020 Census data to begin the process of redrawing election districts to align with current population information. The virtual meeting will be held Wednesday, November 10, 2021 from 1 to 3pm.

The BART Redistricting Committee consists of Directors Lateefah Simon (Chairperson), Elizabeth Ames and Mark Foley.

BART election districts are redrawn every 10 years following the U.S. Census. The primary purpose of redistricting is to ensure population equality among districts.  This process is guided by traditional redistricting principles as well as the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, the federal Voting Rights Act and the BART District Act.

Information about current District boundaries

BART 2011 Election Districts Final Report – Adopted 12/1/2011 (10 Mb .pdf file)

All BART Districts
Counties Included: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco
Map: All BART Districts (.pdf file)

District: 1
Counties Included: Contra Costa
Cities Included: Acalanes Ridge, Alamo, Alhambra Valley, Blackhawk, Camino Tassajara, Castle Hill, Clayton, Concord, Contra Costa Centre, Danville, Diablo, Lafayette, Martinez, Mountain View, Norris Canyon, North Gate, Pacheco, Pleasant Hill, Port Costa, Reliez Valley, San Miguel, San Ramon, Saranap, Shell Ridge, Vine Hill, Walnut Creek
Map: BART District 1 (.pdf file)

District: 2
Counties Included: Contra Costa
Cities Included: Antioch, Bay Point, Bethel Island, Brentwood, Byron, Clyde, Concord, Discovery Bay, Knightsen, Oakley, Pacheco, Pittsburg, Vine Hill
Map: BART District 2 (.pdf file)

District: 3
Counties Included: Alameda, Contra Costa
Cities Included: Albany, Ashland, Berkeley, Castro Valley, Cherryland, El Cerrito, Kensington, Lafayette, Moraga, Oakland, Orinda, Piedmont, San Lorenzo
Map: BART District 3 (.pdf file)

District: 4
Counties Included: Alameda
Cities Included: Alameda, Oakland, San Leandro
Map: BART District 4 (.pdf file)

District: 5
Counties Included: Alameda
Cities Included: Castro Valley, Cherryland, Dublin, Fairview, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, Sunol
Map: BART District 5 (.pdf file)

District: 6
Counties Included: Alameda
Cities Included: Fremont, Hayward (partial), Newark, Sunol, Union City
Map: BART District 6 (.pdf file)

District: 7
Counties Included: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco
Cities Included: Albany, Bayview, Berkeley, Crockett, East Richmond Heights, El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Emeryville, Hercules, Kensington, Montalvin Manor, North Richmond, Oakland, Pinole, Richmond, Rodeo, Rollingwood, San Francisco, San Pablo, Tara Hills
Map: BART District 7 (.pdf file)

District: 8
Cities Included: San Francisco
Counties Included: San Francisco
Map: BART District 8 (.pdf file)

District: 9
Cities Included: San Francisco
Counties Included: San Francisco
Map: BART District 9 (.pdf file)

 

Householder does not provide response for petition, won’t say why

Effort has until April 6, 2022 to gather 9,913 signatures of voters in the district

By Allen Payton

Following receipt of a letter from the Contra Costa Elections office, on Wednesday, approving the petition to recall Antioch School Board President Ellie Householder, one of the leaders of the effort, Lindsey Amezcua said signature gathering has begun. HouseholderRecallPetitionApprovalLetter

Householder was served on Friday, Oct. 8 with the notice of intent to circulate the recall petition, and it was submitted to the county on Tuesday, Oct. 12. Householder then had seven days to provide a response, of up to 200 words, to the reasons given on the petition for the recall. But Amezcua said she did not provide one. (See related article)

Then the notice had to be published in a local newspaper, which was done in the East Bay Times on Friday, Oct. 22. The necessary paperwork was then submitted to the county elections office that same day.  A minor correction had to be made to the paperwork, which was submitted on Tuesday, Oct. 26, Amezcua explained.

The effort included gathering signatures at Wednesday’s school board meeting. Amezcua announced it during public comments at the beginning of the regular meeting.

They will also be gathering signatures during the Rivertown Trick or Treat event in downtown on Saturday, and will be in front of grocery stores, have them available in a variety of businesses, as well as door-to-door directly to voters, she shared.

According to the letter from the county elections office, the effort has 160 days, until April 5, 2022, to gather “not less than 9,913 valid signatures of properly registered voters in the Antioch Unified School District at large”. That’s based on 15% of the total 66,087 voters in the district.

“That’s more than who voted for her in 2018,” Amezcua pointed out. According to the election results, Householder received 8,705 votes when she was elected that year, placing second behind Mary Rocha who received 13,148 votes.

Questions were sent late Wednesday afternoon to Householder asking why she didn’t submit a response, if she missed the seven-day deadline, and if she didn’t care to defend herself, or if she doesn’t consider the recall a serious matter. But she did not respond as of publication time Thursday afternoon.

For more information visit www.RecallEllieHouseholder.com.

Please check back later for any updates to this response.