Claims mayor is lying about recall proponents

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

Dear Editor:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miguel Vazquez

Antioch

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

By Allen D. Payton

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Comments Again Support Map 91

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council Discussion, Two Make Modifications to Map A

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

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

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

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

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

Torres-Walker then brought back up Map A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The motion would

“You can’t make that motion

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

The motion failed 2-3 on the same split.

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

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

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

Hood then showed the modified Map A.

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

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

 

 

Final map “shall” not divide “neighborhoods and ‘communities of interest’” by state law; two new maps comply with requirement

By Allen D. Payton

After narrowing down the choices to redistricting Maps B and 91 before their last meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 8, and hearing from the overwhelming majority of speakers in favor of Map 91 during that meeting, the Antioch City Council majority chose to reject both and return to Map A which had been previously rejected by four of the five council members, as their final choice. Antioch-Redistricting-Draft-Map-A

However, for their special meeting study session, tonight, Tuesday, Feb. 22 beginning at 6:00 p.m., the council will consider three more maps drawn and submitted by the public since the last council meeting. Those maps end with the numbers 512, 516 and 521. All the previous maps are also included in the agenda item. Antioch Council Redistricting Maps 512, 516, 521

FAIR MAPS Act Requires Undivided Neighborhoods

According to the staff report for the special meeting by City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, “Under the (California) FAIR MAPS Act, the City Council shall draw and adopt boundaries using the following criteria in the listed order of priority (Elections Code 21621(c)):

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

The California FAIR MAPS Act was passed in 2019 and took effect Jan. 1, 2020, after the current council district map was adopted in 2018.

Council Majority’s Map Choice Violates Requirement, New Maps Don’t

Both Maps A and B, supported by District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson and Mayor Lamar Thorpe divide neighborhoods and communities of interest, specifically homes in the same homeowners’ association. So, does new Map 512.

But Map 91 which is supported by Mayor Pro Tem and District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock does not. Neither do new Maps 516 and 521, which are almost identical, except for a small section of land along Highway 4 west of Somersville Road and Auto Center Drive where no one lives.

However, Map 91 would result in Wilson living in District 3. While the location of an incumbent’s residence is not a criteria and is a political consideration, all the other maps leave the current council members in their current districts.

New Map 512

The comments made by the resident who drew and submitted Map 512, describing the boundaries for the four council districts, read, “Hopefully, this map will make everyone happy! It uses common sense boundary lines between districts. It uses Lone Tree Way as the boundary between Districts 2 and 3, and Districts 2 and 4. It uses the Delta DeAnza Trail/Contra Costa Canal between Lone Tree Way and Deer Valley Road as a boundary between Districts 3 and 4. It combines the Mira Vista Hills and all neighborhoods on both sides of James Donlon Blvd in District 2. It uses Deer Valley Road then Country Hills Drive between Deer Valley Road and Hillcrest Avenue, then Hillcrest Ave and Lone Tree Way as the boundary between Districts 3 and 4. The greatest population deviation between districts is 1.43% (between Districts 1 and 4). It’s clear to each resident in which district they live, and it doesn’t gerrymander to protect incumbents.”

New Map 516

According to the description for Map 516, “This map keeps all neighborhoods together while using common sense boundary lines. The boundary line between Districts 2 and 3 is Lone Tree Way. The boundary between Districts 2 and 4 is Lone Tree Way and Golf Course Road. The boundary between Districts 3 and 4 is Davison Drive, Deer Valley Road and Lone Tree Way. The greatest population deviation between districts is 2.15% (Districts 1 and 3).”

New Map 521

The resident who drew and submitted Map 521 wrote, “As no consensus could be reached and Map A is really no better than B, I tried to take the elements of both B & 91 that people seemed to like and combine for a new map.”

Districts in Place for Next 10 Years

How the district boundaries are drawn will determine who can run and be elected to the four council seats between 2022 and 2032.

Viewing Meeting & Public Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join Congressman Mark DeSaulnier and representatives from the Contra Costa County Elections Division for an important and timely conversation during the Voting in Contra Costa town hall on elections and mail-in ballots Friday, February 18, 2022 at 12:00 p.m.

To RSVP, click here before 10:00 a.m. Friday.

Would leave State Senate two years early if elected

By Allen D. Payton

In an email sent out, today, Wednesday, Feb. 16, 2022, State Senator Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), who represents the 7th District which includes most of Contra Costa County, said he’s considering running for California State Controller and asked his supporters for their input. Incumbent Betty Yee is termed out after serving eight years in the position so, Glazer would be running for the open seat.

According to the office’s website, the controller is the chief fiscal officer of the state and is responsible for accountability and disbursement of the state’s financial resources…safeguards many types of property until claimed by the rightful owners, independently audits government agencies that spend state funds, and administers the payroll system for state government employees and California State University employees. The Controller is a member of numerous financing authorities, and fiscal and financial oversight entities including the Franchise Tax Board and Board of Equalization.”

If elected Glazer would step down from his seat two years early, creating a vacancy that would be filled by a special election.

When reached for comment, Glazer said he has to decide by March 11, which is the usual end of the candidate filing period. However, according to the California Secretary of State’s Primary Election Calendar (see page 6-10) filing is extended five more days until March 16 when the incumbent cannot or does not file to run for re-election. Asked what would be the determining factor in his decision he said, “hearing from people like you.”

In his message, Glazer wrote:

“I want to share some exciting news with you: I am pondering what could be a big step in my career in public service.

I have been deeply reflecting on my seven years in the Senate, the many policy and fiscal challenges facing our state, and my energy and passion for public service. I don’t make decisions quickly and I do try to take a 360 degree view of any serious matter.

It has been a hard two years under Covid for my work and my family, and I’m sure it has been for you as well. Life is precious, and I often reflect on how I am spending my time. My father died at age 55, so as I have aged, I have continuously felt the time clock ticking. This has helped me live with a no-regrets approach to so many things. Do your best, be nice to everyone, enjoy every day.

So here is my self-assessment: I like my job in the Senate, but I could be working in a school, a non-profit or even local government again and still feel that public service is immensely fulfilling and important. Titles don’t matter so much. It is doing valuable work that is important. So I have a strong desire to remain in public service.

A big reason I ended up running for a legislative office was in rebellion against the status quo of politics. I saw first-hand the rivers of power politics flowing through the Capitol canals. It’s a cliché to simply say that the people’s voices were being drowned out. I would just say that good people are involved on all sides, but most are frozen in fear that the ‘right’ decision would cost them politically. I ran not just to cast a thoughtful vote on the issues of the day. It was to try to set an example as someone willing to do what they think is best and not worry so much about perceived power from interest groups or party bosses.

As you know, I get politically labelled in simplistic ways. People are always looking for shorthand descriptions and analysis, so it is not a surprise to be framed as this or that. Suffice it to say I am not a conformist. The status quo of politics is breaking down and people wonder why I am not conforming. Hello!

To cut to the chase, there is a state constitutional office of Controller where the incumbent is termed out. There is meaning to the word constitutional. It is an independent office elected by the entire state, and the responsibilities of the office — overseeing all taxes and revenues — are intended to be independent of party power. Besides sitting as a voting member of numerous tax, pension and land authorities, the Controller has independent power to audit the use and effectiveness of your tax dollars by every public agency in our state. Spending on schools, the homeless, fire prevention, drought, public safety, pensions, mental health, and safety net programs are all subject to review by the Controller. Knowing me as so many of you do, you can see my interest in this position.

Asking hard questions and instigating oversight has been a part of all my public service work. For ten years, I was on the audit committee of my city. I served for four years on the audit committee of the Board of Trustees of the 23-campus California State University. I presently serve on the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. Part of the reason that members of my own party are uncomfortable with me is because I see the spending of every tax dollar as critically important not just in delivering the best services for the money but because the wise stewardship of our tax dollars is the foundation upon which we built public trust. Underscoring all of that is the willingness to have the independent backbone to speak truth to power.

So I am taking the next few weeks to delve deeper into the job, the dynamics of a short campaign (June primary), and feedback from friends and supporters.

My current Senate term runs until 2024. Should I run for this job, I will encounter the same vitriol that is emblematic of our current state of politics. But it is an opportunity to potentially pursue a job of bigger scope, responsibility and impact. What do you think?

Your support is why I have the privilege of serving as your state Senator. Many thanks for this honor of a lifetime.

Best,

Steve”

 

Will have to defend controversial policies as one of nation’s Soros-backed district attorneys; faces two challengers, including career prosecutor

By Allen D. Payton

In a press release issued Monday, Feb. 14 and received by the Herald on Tuesday, Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton announced her campaign for re-election in the June 7th Primary Election.

According to the announcement, on February 12, 2022, at the U.A. 342 Union Hall in Concord, state and county elected and labor leaders joined more than 150 community members as Becton kicked off her campaign.

“Four years ago, Contra Costa voters elected me as your district attorney with overwhelming, majority support,” said DA Becton. “In these challenging times, feeling safe in our homes and our communities is what we all deserve. I am proud to say I have worked hard to deliver safety, justice and progress for the people of Contra Costa County. I am running for re-election to continue the important work of making our communities safer and our system more fair for everyone, and I thank the people of Contra Costa County for their support.”

The press release claims, since taking office, DA Becton has kept her promise to make real and lasting change, transforming the District Attorney’s Office into one that works for everyone in Contra Costa County and delivering justice for victims. She has worked to support victims, focus resources on violent crime and reduce mass incarceration. Under her leadership, the District Attorney’s Office also has developed and enhanced diversion programs and encouraged treatment for those who suffer from mental illness and drug addiction. She is also advancing youth justice by establishing a juvenile diversion pre-filing program and creating the Reimagine Youth Justice Task Force to recommend alternatives to prison for young people.

During her tenure 51 veteran deputy DA’s have left the department for one reason or another, and 40 rookie deputies were hired following their graduation from law school. No lateral hires of veteran prosecutors from other agencies to fill the vacancies have occurred.

“My priority has always been serving the people of Contra Costa and making our voices heard on issues that matter most,” said Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11). “When it comes to the safety of our families and our communities, there is no one who will work harder than District Attorney Diana Becton. Her proven leadership has led to tremendous progress to help keep our communities safe and our system more fair and equitable. I’m proud to support her campaign.”

Among her other accomplishments, District Attorney Becton:

• Co-leads the FBI Safe Streets Task Force that coordinates the resources of federal, state and local law enforcement on violent crime.
• Continues to file felony charges in organized retail theft incidents in Walnut Creek, coordinating with law enforcement partners throughout the Bay Area.
• Eliminated backlog of untested sexual assault kits and established the county’s first Human Trafficking Unit.
• Established Cold Case Homicide Unit to pursue justice for the victims and families of unsolved murders.
• Joined Code for America initiative to dismiss thousands of old marijuana convictions, which disproportionately affect people of color in the community.
• Piloted the California County Resentencing Program to address excessive sentencing.
• Partnered with The Vera Institute of Justice (VERA) on data analysis to uncover and address bias in the disposition of criminal cases. (See related article)
• Strengthened the internal investigative procedures associated with the investigation of officer-involved shootings and banned use of carotid hold by DA office investigators. (See related article)
• Successfully held a local steel company accountable for dumping toxic waste in the community. The local steel company was forced to pay a $4 million fine. (See related article)

“District Attorney Diana Becton has made lasting changes in her efforts to transform and reimagine the DA’s office into one that works for everyone,” said BART Board Director Lateefah Simon, who represents District 7 which includes portions of West County. “We need a leader who is prioritizing safety for our communities while staying resolute in working to reduce mass incarceration’s harm on Black communities and communities of color. I thank her for her courage and historic leadership.”

As part of that transformation and efforts to “reimagine the DA’s office”, Becton has taken controversial positions on various issues during her term in office, including supporting banning campaign contributions for DA candidates from police officer unions. (See related articles here and here)

She has also issued controversial policies for her department. In 2020 Becton issued a policy requiring prosecutors consider the reason for looting during a state of emergency before charging suspects with a crime. (See related article)

Then in late 2020, she announced a policy that prevents her department from prosecuting certain first-time criminals including drug offenders arrested with small amounts or for other crimes such as shoplifting, petty theft, disorderly conduct. (See related article)

In addition, in an effort to fulfill a campaign promise from 2018, in December, Becton announced a new Neighborhood Restorative Partnership program, a voluntary, neighborhood-focused, adult diversion, restorative justice initiative addressing root causes of criminal behavior, reducing recidivism, enhancing community relationships, and promoting public safety and quality of life. She put her office’s Assistant Investigator/Facility K9 Handler in charge of the program, who said in December, the procedures, guidelines, and logistics are still under development. As of Wednesday, Feb. 16, a group of volunteers was interviewed and selected to participate, but the program has not yet launched.  (See related article)

Appointed by the Board of Supervisors, Becton took office in 2017 as the first woman and first African-American District Attorney in the County’s 167-year history “with overwhelming countywide and community support” her campaign press release stated. She was then elected in 2018 as one of several left-leaning, progressive DA’s in the nation backed by billionaire George Soros in an effort to reshape America’s criminal justice system. According to a report by RepublicBroadcasting.org, Becton was “backed by $275,000 from Soros in 2018,” and is “one of the first in the position to have zero prior experience as a prosecutor. During Becton’s first years in office four Contra Costa cities (Richmond, Antioch, Pittsburg and Concord) made the list of the top 100 most dangerous cities in California in 2018, and both violent crime and property crime increased by several percent during 2019.”

Becton married a Richmond minister in summer 2020 and stirred controversy by hosting the wedding and reception in her back yard violation of COVID-19 orders. She was chastised by the Board of Supervisors for her actions. (See related articles here, here and here).

Becton is currently the only African-American District Attorney in California. According to the Contra Costa Elections office, as of Tuesday, Feb. 15, she faces two challengers in the race, including criminal defense attorney Lawrence Strauss, who placed a distant third in the 2018 election, and veteran Contra Costa Deputy DA Mary Knox. Read more about DA Becton at www.dianabecton.com.

For county DA, sheriff, supervisor, Superior Court judges and other offices, U.S. Senate, Congress, governor and other statewide offices, and State Assembly

By Dawn Kruger, Civic Outreach/Engagement Specialist, Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department

On Monday, February 14, the June 7, 2022, Candidate Filing Period will begin, and nomination papers will be available for candidates running for Statewide Constitutional offices, County offices, Superior Court judges, United States Senator, United States Representative in Congress and Member of the State Assembly. The nomination period runs through 5:00 pm Friday, March 11, 2022.  A list of offices currently up for election can be found here: https://www.cocovote.us/wp-content/uploads/22Jun07_PositionsUpForElection-1.pdf

Papers for offices that are up for election will be available at the Contra Costa Elections Office, 555 Escobar Street, Martinez.

For further information on the primary election and key dates, visit www.cocovote.us.

With COVID-19 still in play, the Contra Costa Elections Division is asking interested candidates to schedule an appointment through email at candidate.services@vote.cccounty.us or by calling 925-335-7800. Walk-ins are accepted, but subject to the availability of staff. Appointments are available on weekdays from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. Filing documents and information will be provided to interested constituents at their appointment. The process takes 20 minutes.

All visitors will be asked to check-in at the Elections lobby and will be required to wear a mask and observe social distancing guidelines.

Special redistricting workshop at 6:00 p.m. for public input and possibly choose final map

Map 91 drawn by member of the public; Map B drawn by council’s consultant

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting Tuesday night, February 8, the Antioch City Council will consider two final maps for redrawing the boundaries of the city council districts for the next 10 years. (See related article)

Of the two finalists, Map 91 was drawn and submitted by a member of the public using the online mapping tool on the City’s website and uses major streets and the canal as the dividers. The other, Map B was created by the consultants of Q2 hired by the council and keeps things much the same.

At the January 26 meeting, the council members were asked to winnow the 13 map alternatives were narrowed down to two. Mayor Lamar Thorpe and District 4 Council Member rejected all of the maps submitted by the public and supported Map B. Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica, who represents District 2, and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock supported Map 91. District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker was the only member to offer support for two maps, initially Maps A and B. Then when no other council member supported Map A, she gave her support to Map 91 instead. Both maps were then advanced to Tuesday’s meeting for discussion and a possible vote to choose the final map.

Special Workshop at 6:00 p.m.

The council will hold a special workshop at 6:00 p.m. The staff report for the item reads, “It is recommended that the City Council receive public comment and select the Final Redistricting Map redefining the boundaries of all City Council electoral districts of the City.”

Regular Meeting

During the regular council meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m. the council will hold the public hearing on redistricting, which is item 5.

The meeting can be viewed in-person in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street and are televised live on Comcast channel 24, AT&T U-verse channel 99, or live stream at www.antiochca.gov/government/city-council-meetings.

Public Comments

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.

1. 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 or the meeting. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.